Evaluation of reforms to initial teacher training in England: wave 1 interim report

Evaluation of Reforms to Initial Teacher Training in England: Wave 1 Interim Report

October 2026

Authors: Alma Economics

Contents

• Acronyms
• List of figures
• Structure of the Report
• Executive Summary
• Background and Context
• What is Initial Teacher Training (ITT)?
• Policy background of the ITT reforms
• Aims and objectives of the evaluation
• Methodology
• Scoping
• Implementation and process evaluation
• Theory-based impact evaluation
• Grant funding analysis
• Limitations
• Wave 1 Findings: Implementation and Process Evaluation and Theory-Based Impact Assessment

Findings from the survey with current providers, training partners, placement and non- placement schools, and trainees 26

Findings from follow-up interviews with current and non-continuing providers, training partners, placement schools, trainees, and MAT leads 63

• Wave 1 Findings: Grant Funding Analysis
• Findings from the grant funding survey
• Findings from the follow-up interviews with financial leads within ITT providers and schools
• Initial reflections on improvements
• Annex: Secondary Data Analysis
• Grant funding data

Acronyms

List of figures

Figure 1. How satisfied were/are you with ITT? (n = 1,298) 29

Figure 2. How satisfied were/are you with each of these elements of the ITT? (n = 1,298) 30

Figure 3. How would you rate your readiness to teach, or if you are still in the programme, how would you expect your readiness to teach to be at the end of ITT? (n = 1,298) 33

Figure 4. How effective was/is each of these elements in supporting your readiness to teach? (n = 1,298) 34

Figure 5. At this point in time, how likely do you think it is that you will remain in the teaching profession for at least the next five years? (n = 1,169) 36

Figure 6. How effective was/is each of these elements of your training in determining your willingness to stay in the profession? (n = 1,298) 37

Figure 7. How much change was needed for each of the following elements of your programme? (n = 74) 40

Figure 8. How easy or difficult has it been to implement the changes to each of the following elements of your programme in response to the reforms? (n = 74) 43

Figure 9. How effective do you think this element of ITT has been, following the reforms, in supporting the quality of your training? (n = 74) 46

Figure 10. How satisfied are you with your organisation's new role in the provision of ITT as a result of the reforms? (n = 13) 49

Figure 11. How satisfied are you with the way your involvement in the design of the ITT programme has changed since the implementation of the reforms? (n = 16) 50

Figure 12. How has your satisfaction with the delivery of ITT changed as a result of the 2022 ITT reforms and Quality Requirements? (n = 31) 51

Figure 13. How satisfied are you in your engagement with ITT-accredited providers? (n = 31) 51

Figure 14. Which element(s) from the Quality Requirements are you involved in delivering or supporting as part of your partnership? Select all that apply (n = 31) 52

Figure 15. How effective do you think this element of ITT has been, following the reforms, in supporting the quality of your training? (n = 31) 53

Figure 16. We are aware that some ITT trainees secure employment as ECTs at one of their placement schools. Do you think that the new ITT reforms have impacted the retention of ITT trainees as ECTs in your school? (n = 131) 55

Figure 17. How has your satisfaction with hosting trainees changed since the implementation of the reforms in the 2024/2025 school year? (n = 131) 56

Figure 18. How easy do you feel it was to implement the following elements of the reforms? (n = 131) 58

Figure 19. How effective do you think this ITT element is in supporting the quality of your training (as a placement school)? (n = 131) 60

Figure 20. How has your financial capacity to host trainees changed since the implementation of the ITT reforms? (n = 131) 61

Figure 21. How has your willingness to host trainees changed since the implementation of the new ITT reforms? (n = 131) 61

Figure 22. How has your satisfaction with your role in delivering placements for ITT changed since the implementation of the ITT reforms? (n = 131) 62

Figure 23. Have you noticed any changes in the following aspects of trainees’ readiness to teach compared to before the 2024 reforms? (n = 4) 63

Figure 24. Please indicate how your organisation used the Set-up funding (select all that apply) (n = 15) 90

Figure 25. To what extent was the grant funding sufficient to cover the costs of the activities mentioned in the previous question? (n = 15) 90

Figure 26. Please indicate your level of agreement with this statement: “This grant was useful to my organisation” (n = 15) 91

Figure 27. Did the grant funding interact with other income streams (for example, tuition fees, school budgets, central funding)? (n = 15) 92

Figure 28. Please indicate how your organisation used the partnership funding (select all that apply) (n = 15) 93

Figure 29. To what extent was the grant funding sufficient to cover the costs of the activities mentioned in the previous question? (n = 15) 93

Figure 30. Please indicate your level of agreement with this statement: “This grant was useful to my organisation” (n = 15) 94

Figure 31. Did the grant funding interact with other income streams (for example, tuition fees, school budgets, central funding)? (n = 15) 95

Figure 32. Please indicate how your organisation used the ITAP grant in the 2024/25 academic year (select all that apply) (n = 32) 96

Figure 33. To what extent was the grant funding sufficient to cover the costs of the activities mentioned in the previous question? (n = 32) 97

Figure 34. Please indicate your level of agreement with this statement: “This grant was useful to my organisation” (n = 32) 98

Figure 35. Did the grant funding interact with other income streams (for example, tuition fees, school budgets, central funding)? (n = 32) 98

Figure 36. Please indicate how your organisation used the lead mentor funding (select all that apply) (n = 33) 99

Figure 37. To what extent was the grant funding sufficient to cover the costs of the activities mentioned in the previous question? (n = 33) 100

Figure 38. Please indicate your level of agreement with this statement: “This grant was useful to my organisation” (n = 33) 100

Figure 39. Did the grant funding interact with other income streams (for example, tuition fees, school budgets, central funding)? (n = 33) 101

Figure 40. Please indicate how your organisation used the general mentor grant (select all that apply) (n = 48) 102

Figure 41. To what extent was the grant funding sufficient to cover the costs of the activities mentioned in the previous question? (n = 48) 103

Figure 42. Please indicate your level of agreement with this statement: “This grant was useful to my organisation” (n = 48) 103

Figure 43. Did the grant funding interact with other income streams (for example, tuition fees, school budgets, central funding)? (n = 48) 104

Structure of the Report

This report contains the following sections:

• The ‘Executive summary’ section provides a summary of the overall background, methods, and main findings from this interim report.
• The ‘Background and context’ section provides an overview of ITT, outlines

relevant policy background, and states the research aims and objectives of this evaluation.

• The ‘Methodology’ section sets out the methodological approach for the

Implementation and Process Evaluation (IPE), Grant Funding Analysis (GFA), and the theory-based assessment, which will be reported on in future reports. This section also outlines the limitations of the methodology.

• ‘Wave 1 Implementation and Process Evaluation’ outlines the findings from our

principal research activities around implementation. It draws on perspectives from accredited providers, training partners, schools, multi-academy trust (MAT) leads, non-continuing providers, and trainees, engaged through surveys and follow-up interviews. The findings focus on the implementation of the Quality Requirements, the enablers and challenges for implementation, and the perceived outcomes from the reforms, including trainee and teacher satisfaction, readiness to start as an ECT, teaching quality, school involvement, sharing of skills across the sector, and unintended consequences.

• ‘Wave 1 Grant funding analysis’ summarises the results of our primary research

into grant funding usage. It incorporates insights from recipients of Set-up, Partnership, Lead mentor, General mentor, and Intensive Training and Practice (ITAP) grants, collected through surveys and follow-up interviews. The report highlights how recipients used the grants, their perceived value, and the challenges they faced during the claims process.

• ‘Initial reflections on improvement’ presents a recollection of findings from both

the IPE and GFA strands of the research, incorporating the stakeholders’ perspectives on lessons for the future delivery of reforms.

• The ‘Secondary data analysis’ annex presents the analysis of DfE grant funding data, including a review of claims for each individual grant.

Executive Summary

In 2021, the Department for Education (DfE) introduced a new set of Quality Requirements for all Initial Teacher Training (ITT) courses leading to Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) for delivery from September 2024. These requirements span five domains: curriculum and practice, mentoring and guidance, assessment, quality assurance, and partnerships and structures. Alma Economics has been commissioned to conduct a three-year independent evaluation to examine how these reforms are being implemented across England and their impact on training quality and trainee outcomes through engagement with trainees, accredited providers, training partners, schools, multi-academy trust leaders, and non- continuing providers. The evaluation uses a mixed-methods approach, drawing on findings from surveys, interviews, and focus groups, case studies, secondary data analysis, and contribution analysis as a theory-based impact evaluation method. This interim report presents findings from the first wave of the evaluation; therefore, the reported results are preliminary and will be investigated further in subsequent waves. Among the limitations from this report, it is important to note that training partners and placement schools are less represented in the sample than ITT providers, and their perspectives should be interpreted as illustrative rather than representative.

The development of partnerships was a variable aspect of the reforms in terms of stakeholder experience. Interviews highlighted that some partnerships were formed specifically to support providers that had lost accreditation, with the aim of maintaining ITT provision in particular regions. While this helped sustain local supply, some providers felt it added further pressure to what was described as an already stretched system, with tight timelines and financial uncertainty shaping the terms of new relationships. For some providers, establishing new partnerships was manageable and yielded real benefits such as stronger collaboration, a more coherent shared curriculum, clearer institutional roles, and opportunities for critical reflection on practice. For others, the process was time- consuming, administratively burdensome, financially risky, and at times deeply stressful[footnote 1]. Training partners, in particular, often experienced a reduced role in programme design, shifting from leading their own curriculum to delivering standardised programmes set by accredited partners, with limited scope for local adaptation. Some described a loss of autonomy and reduced connection to the wider system; others found their roles had become more defined and their contributions more valued.

Broader concerns about the sustainability of the reformed market were raised consistently in interviews. These included a perceived reduction in ITT offer in some areas, a more competitive landscape following reaccreditation, the loss of contextual programme elements, and the administrative and financial demands placed on providers

and schools. Placement capacity emerged as a perceived risk[footnote 2]. According to stakeholders, the cumulative burden of mentoring, ITAP, and collaboration requirements has strained some partnerships and reduced the availability of school placements in certain areas.

Across all groups, stakeholders reflected on their experiences of the reforms and what they felt would be needed to make them work better. They called for a less pressured implementation timeline and clearer and more consistent guidance from DfE. All grants were welcomed and mostly seen favourably, but the few participants who were able to participate in the grant funding interviews also stressed the importance of funding in the sustainability of the reforms. More broadly, stakeholders highlighted that further policy changes should be developed in close consultation with the sector, so changes can better reflect the practical constraints of capacity and resources in schools.

Regarding the specific implementation of the Quality Requirements, the curriculum stands out as one of the most successfully implemented elements of the reforms. Accredited providers found it one of the easier components to develop, and it was widely rated as effective or very effective (by 58% of accredited providers in the survey) in supporting training quality. Trainees identified its structure as a principal driver of both their satisfaction and their readiness to teach, with a large majority (70%) reporting that it had meaningfully supported their classroom preparation. The curriculum was also positively associated with trainees' intention to remain in the profession (60% of trainees stated that the content of the curriculum was ‘Very effective’ or ‘Effective’ in determining their willingness to stay in the profession), suggesting it may contribute not only to immediate readiness but to longer-term retention. Across stakeholder groups, the structured curriculum was consistently identified as a key enabler of quality training. However, some providers expressed concern that the degree of standardisation has come at the cost of contextual nuance, limiting their ability to tailor content to local needs and professional contexts.

School-based practice emerged as the single most effective element of the ITT courses, rated highly by trainees, training partners, and placement schools alike. Trainees reported strong levels of satisfaction (77%) with their school placements and identified practice as central to both their readiness to teach (86% of survey participants stated that practice through school placements was ‘Very effective’ or ‘Effective’ in supporting their readiness to teach) and their likelihood of remaining in the profession (76%). Placement schools similarly viewed the minimum time requirement for school-based training as both easy to implement (by 55% of survey participants) and effective in supporting the quality of training (by 70%). Despite this, collaboration between accredited providers and placement schools presented notable challenges. A significant proportion of providers described this process as difficult, and the logistical and administrative demands of coordinating placements placed strain on both parties. While providers were invested in facilitating the relationships

with schools, the operational burden of sustaining them, particularly alongside the implementation of the updated elements such as ITAP and mentor training, contributed to a perceived reduction in available placements in some areas, a concern raised consistently in interviews with accredited providers.

The Intensive Training and Practice (ITAP) element from the reformed ITT courses was viewed positively across stakeholder groups as a conceptually sound approach. Accredited providers and training partners rated it as the most effective quality requirement for supporting overall training quality (by 69% of accredited providers and 15 out of 31 training partners). Nevertheless, they also reported that its implementation generated significant pressure, with design and coordination of ITAP being among the most demanding aspects of the reforms, with high time and coordination costs for providers. Trainee perceptions of ITAP were more mixed. Satisfaction and perceived effectiveness were lower than for the curriculum and school practice[footnote 3], with a smaller group (compared to other elements) reporting that ITAP had a positive effect on either their readiness to teach (58% of survey participants stated the ITAPs were ‘Very effective’ or ‘Effective’ in supporting their readiness to teach) or their intention to remain in the profession (49% stated the ITAPs were ‘Very effective’ or ‘Effective in supporting their willingness to stay in the profession). In contrast, interviewed trainees generally valued the ITAPs for skill development, though some found it too demanding alongside wider programme demands.

Mentoring was identified across interviews as one of the most transformative aspects of the reforms, with participants noting that mentors' roles now carry greater status and clarity of purpose. The majority of trainees (70%) were satisfied with their mentoring experience and felt it had supported both their readiness to teach (71% of survey participants opted for mentoring being ‘Very effective’ or ‘Effective in supporting their readiness to teach) and their intention to remain in the profession (65% opted for mentoring being ‘Very effective’ or ‘Effective’ in supporting their willingness to stay in the profession). Notably, a lack of mentor support was the most frequently cited reason for programme withdrawal, underscoring the pivotal role of effective mentoring in trainee retention. However, implementation varied considerably. The identification and training of general mentors was reported as among the more difficult requirements to fulfil, with many schools struggling to release staff for mentor training. Some providers reported a direct reduction in placement capacity as a result of the resources required to release mentors for training. In addition, survey data showed that the perceived effectiveness of mentoring in supporting training quality was moderate across all groups and was the second most common area of dissatisfaction for trainees among the Quality Requirements (19% noted they were ‘Dissatisfied’ or ‘Very dissatisfied’ with this element). It is worth noting that, in response to sector feedback, DfE removed the requirement for a specific number of hours of mentor

training (20) mid-year; this may prompt different responses in the implementation of this requirement for Waves 2 and 3 of this evaluation.

The quality assurance framework was among the easier elements for accredited providers to implement, with most reporting that systems were already in place. It was also viewed positively by around half of providers as a support to training quality.

Assessment frameworks were similarly found to be straightforward to implement. However, trainee perceptions of formative assessment were the least positive of any Quality Requirement; trainees reported the highest levels of indifference (20% stated they were ‘Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ with the assessments), the second lowest satisfaction ratings (62% noted they were ‘Very satisfied’ or ‘Satisfied’)[footnote 4], and the weakest associations with both readiness to teach (53% noted they were ‘Very effective’ or ‘Effective’ in supporting their readiness to teach) and intention to remain in the profession (43% noted they were ‘Very effective’ or ‘Effective’ in supporting their willingness to remain in the profession). Training partners were particularly sceptical of the assessment's contribution to training quality, although their involvement in the assessment process might also be limited.

The large majority of trainees (81%) felt ready to teach at the end of their ITT, reported overall satisfaction with their training (71% noted they were ‘Very satisfied’ or ‘Satisfied’), and indicated an intention to remain in the profession (74% reflected it was ‘Very likely’ or ‘Somewhat likely’ that they would remain in the profession for at least the next five years). Other stakeholders were more divided on whether the reforms have improved outcomes. While some noted improvements in readiness and quality, others suggested that outcomes may have remained static or declined in some respects. The factors most strongly associated with positive outcomes were a structured curriculum, high-quality school practice, and effective mentoring.

Grants for the setup, development of partnerships, lead mentors, ITAP, and general mentors were widely seen as useful, though views on sufficiency were divided. Interview participants were more critical, noting, for example, that the general mentor grant covered training but not the mentoring role itself, and that ITAP funding left hidden costs uncovered. However, it is important to note that only three participants took part in grant- funding interviews. Organisations interviewed largely used funding in line with grant guidance, with grants supplementing rather than displacing existing income streams. Funding through these grants was considered important for supporting the broader conditions and sustainability of the reforms.

Background and Context

What is Initial Teacher Training (ITT)?

Initial Teacher Training (ITT)[footnote 5] refers to the range of courses available in England that prepare prospective teachers for entry into the profession, and as one of the routes leading to the award of Qualified Teacher Status (QTS)[footnote 6]. The ITT landscape in England is diverse and complex, encompassing a wide range of provider types, course structures, and delivery models. Broadly, the majority of ITT provision can be grouped into four main pathways leading to QTS:

• Undergraduate fee-funded routes, which allow students to gain QTS as part of a

three- or four-year degree, such as a Bachelor of Education (BEd), a Bachelor of Arts (BA)/Bachelor of Science (BSc) with integrated ITT programmes.

• An undergraduate salaried route, the Teacher Degree Apprenticeship (in early development).
• Postgraduate fee-funded routes, where trainees complete a one-year course after their undergraduate degree.
• Postgraduate salaried routes, which consist of salaried training options where

trainees work in schools while training and are employed during their course, including School Direct Salaried (SDS), Postgraduate Teacher Apprenticeship (PGTA), and High Potential Initial Teacher Training (HPITT).

Additionally, some courses offer a Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) as an additional academic award bundled with QTS.

Policy background of the ITT reforms

The ITT sector has undergone significant reform, with the changes examined in this evaluation forming part of a broader, long-term transformation of teacher training and professional development in England. These changes have been underway since the publication of the Carter Review of ITT in 2015, under the previous government, which aimed to ensure that teachers receive high-quality preparation, early career support, and ongoing professional development that is coherent, evidence-based, and focused on improving pupil outcomes.

Some key milestones relating to ITT reform and teacher CPD include:

• The publication of the ITT Core Content Framework (CCF) in 2019, which set out the minimum entitlement for the curricula of all ITT courses leading to QTS.
• The Early Career Framework (ECF), also published in 2019, which entitles all Early

Career Teachers (ECTs) to a funded package of structured training and mentoring in the first two years of their career post-qualification, as part of a newly-extended induction period.

• The 2020 reforms and current review of the National Professional Qualifications

(NPQs), a national suite of qualifications designed to support the ongoing professional development of teachers and school leaders.

• The Initial Teacher Training and Early Career Framework (ITTECF), published in

January 2024, which combines and replaces the ITT CCF and the ECF. It incorporates enhancements to the curriculum regarding supporting pupils with special education needs and disabilities (SEND), high-quality oral language, early cognitive development, and social and emotional learning.

To build further on the Carter Review and ensure all ITT courses were high-quality, the Department for Education (DfE) appointed a group of national experts in teacher training to conduct a comprehensive review of the ITT market in England, which was published in 2021. Drawing on available national and international evidence, the expert group recommended that a new set of Quality Requirements should be introduced for all ITT courses leading to QTS and that a robust reaccreditation process should be implemented to ensure that providers were equipped to meet them in full. Following a seven-week public consultation to gather feedback from across the education sector, DfE published a document outlining the Government's official response to the ITT Market Review and the consultation on its recommendations, the majority of which were accepted. This response marked the beginning of a formal implementation phase for all accredited providers delivering courses that lead to QTS from academic year 2024/25 onwards. The new Quality Requirements introduce a comprehensive framework of expectations across five key domains:

• Curriculum: Providers must design a fully sequenced, evidence-informed

curriculum that integrates all aspects of the ITTECF. A central innovation is the introduction of Intensive Training and Practice (ITAP), a concentrated period of learning, practice, and feedback, designed to help trainees bridge the gap between theory and practice and build confidence in key areas of the training curriculum.

• Mentoring and guidance: All trainees must receive structured mentoring aligned

with the provider’s curriculum, delivered by trained mentors. Mentor training requirements have been extended, and new lead mentor roles have been introduced to provide oversight, support mentor development, and contribute to course improvement. The initial requirements specified minimum training hours for

general mentors (20 hours for initial training plus 6 hours for annual refresher training) and lead mentors (30 hours for initial training and 12 hours for annual refresher training). However, DfE later removed the requirement for a minimum of 20 hours of general mentor training in 2024. This was in recognition that flexibility in the time mentors spend training would be beneficial, particularly for mentors supporting trainees on second school placements.

• Assessment: Providers must develop an assessment framework that evaluates

trainees’ knowledge, understanding, and application of the curriculum throughout the course. Formative feedback should support development, while summative assessment for QTS is reserved for the end of the programme.

• Quality assurance: There is a strengthened emphasis on continuous quality

assurance, with providers required to monitor all elements of curriculum delivery, mentoring, and assessment.

• Structures and partnerships: Accredited providers are accountable for the quality

of provision across their partnerships. They must establish clear governance arrangements with training partners, ensure sufficient training capacity, and secure diverse placement opportunities, including in schools serving disadvantaged communities. Financial arrangements across the partnership must be transparently reflective of roles and responsibilities.

As recommended in the ITT Market Review, the Government introduced a new accreditation process to ensure that all providers delivering ITT courses leading to QTS could demonstrate alignment with the Quality Requirements.

To maintain sufficient training capacity and ensure national coverage, accredited ITT providers operate through formalised partnerships that bring together different types of organisations with complementary roles and expertise. While DfE does not prescribe the precise structure or size of partnerships, it sets out a framework of responsibilities across three main roles:

• Accredited ITT providers are the legal entities awarded accreditation and hold full and final accountability for all aspects of training design, delivery, and quality.
• Training partners have an operational or strategic role with responsibilities

delegated to them by the accredited provider, and their role will include delivering training and may include trainee recruitment.

• Placement schools host trainees during school placements and provide general mentoring.

At the time of fieldwork for Wave 1, there were 170 accredited providers, 355 training partners and 12,841 placement schools that support the preparation of 28,898 trainees in England.

To build capacity across the sector and help providers meet the enhanced Quality Requirements, the DfE introduced five targeted grants to support the implementation of the revised ITT programmes. Two initial one-off grants supported the initial preparation for implementation (set-up grant) and the development of new delivery partnerships (partnership grant). Three additional grants were introduced and remain available to cover the costs of teachers attending general mentor training (general mentor grant), supporting the lead mentor role (lead mentor grant), and supporting the design and delivery of the ITAP component (ITAP grant). Furthermore, DfE provided support to providers through ITT Quality Associates[footnote 7] responsible for making readiness to deliver checks, and Provider Relationship Managers[footnote 8], who offered guidance, monitored progress, shared best practice, and supported the effective management of the readiness checks. This coordinated approach aimed to ensure that providers stayed on track and had access to the necessary support throughout the implementation of the reforms.

Since the publication of the Market Review, the reforms have generated considerable debate across the sector. Some providers, particularly among higher education institutions, have expressed reservations about the accreditation process and implementation while still supporting the overall aims and evidence for the reforms (Sims, 2021). Others have questioned the reform objectives and highlighted the impact they have caused for those working within the sector (Cushing & Ellis, 2025). A number of these concerns reflect the perception that reforms were influenced by wider ideological or political priorities, alongside apprehension about the potential effects on provider diversity, regional capacity, and the overall shape of the sector (Brooks & Perryman, 2024; Wire et al., 2025). Schools have also voiced concerns through representative bodies. Notably, the National Association of Headteachers (NAHT, 2021) questioned the capacity to implement the proposed mentoring requirements, warning that the associated costs were unaffordable and could worsen staff attrition rather than raise teaching quality. In contrast, one multi-academy trust acknowledged the need to reform the ITT market and urged the sector to seize this moment as an opportunity to strengthen teacher training across England (Lock, 2021).

Aims and objectives of the evaluation

This evaluation aims to generate a robust understanding of how the ITT reforms, and especially the five Quality Requirements (curriculum, mentoring and guidance, assessment, quality assurance, and partnerships), are being implemented across England. More specifically, the research is monitoring emerging effects on ITT provision,

the experiences of stakeholders, and the outcomes for trainees and ECTs. Using mixed- methods data collection techniques focused on three academic years (2024/25 - 2026/27), this research aims to:

• To report on the implementation of the ITT Market Review recommendations accepted by DfE, with a particular focus on the Quality Requirements.
• To identify enablers and barriers to the implementation of ITT reforms from the

perspective of key stakeholders, including ITT providers, training partners, and placement schools.

• To assess the perceived outcomes and benefits of the reforms, including on

trainees' experience and any impact on the confidence, preparedness, and competence of ECTs.

• To explore unintended consequences of the reforms (for example, potential

pressure on school placements or inequality in access) and suggest evidence- based improvements.

In addition to the core process evaluation and perception of impacts, the evaluation will also include two additional components:

• Analysis of reform-related grant funding and broader financial flows: This

component will investigate how grant funding has been distributed across the system, the activities it has supported, and whether it has influenced the use or reallocation of other funding sources (for example, tuition fees). This analysis will combine quantitative data collection on funding patterns with qualitative insights into provider strategies and decision-making.

• Theory-based assessment of the impact of ITT reforms: Recognising the

methodological limitations associated with causal inference in a non-experimental policy environment, particularly in an area already going through substantial policy and practice change, contribution analysis will be used to assess the extent to which the reforms have contributed to observable changes across the ITT system. This will involve constructing and testing an evidence-based contribution story, drawing on stakeholder insights, outcome trends, and implementation data to build a credible account of the reforms’ role in driving change.

Methodology

This three-year evaluation uses a mixed-methods approach, drawing on findings from surveys, interviews and focus groups, case studies, secondary data analysis, and contribution analysis as a theory-based impact evaluation method. It is designed to generate robust insights around how ITT reforms are being implemented, the benefits and unintended consequences they are generating for stakeholders, and to inform evidence- based recommendations for the future of ITT. This interim report documents the findings from the first wave of the evaluation.

Scoping

To begin the evaluation, a desk-based review of 40 papers and materials from the existing academic and grey literature on the implementation of ITT reforms was conducted. Examples of documents reviewed included the ITT Market Review, the Government’s response to the ITT Market Review report, and the ITTECF. Internal documents and reports were also provided by DfE to further understand the context and design of the reforms.

Following this, seven interviews with 16 DfE staff members were conducted to understand the internal perspectives, key elements from the reforms, context, rationale, expected outcomes, and the plan for future mechanisms to monitor compliance. Two of the interviews also included discussions about the use and availability of datasets to support secondary analysis and grant funding assessments.

Based on the desk-based review and scoping interviews, an initial robust conceptual framework for the evaluation was developed through a Theory of Change (ToC). The ToC outlines the key elements of the reformed ITT provision and the anticipated causal pathways linking them to corresponding outputs and outcomes. It focuses in particular on the Quality Requirements introduced by DfE in response to the ITT Market Review.

To ensure the ToC was informed by stakeholder perspectives, two participatory workshops were conducted to review and refine the initial version of the ToC. The first workshop was attended by six members of the DfE project team and policy colleagues, which allowed for understanding perspectives regarding the intended implementation and outcomes of the ITT reforms. The second workshop was attended by seven members of the Expert Working Group for this evaluation, which is made up of senior stakeholders within the sector. One member of the Expert Working Group could not attend but provided written feedback. Each workshop lasted 60-90 minutes, and they were hosted on Microsoft Teams. The ToC will remain as an ongoing piece of work and will be updated throughout the evaluation.

Implementation and process evaluation

The implementation and process evaluation (IPE) will take place over three waves, the first of which is now complete. In this initial wave, surveys, interviews, and focus groups with trainees[footnote 9] (who started ITT in the 2024/2025 academic year), accredited providers, training partners, and placement schools were used to assess the implementation of the reforms, as well as exploring enablers, barriers, unintended consequences, and early perceived impacts on ECTs.

Surveys with trainees, accredited providers, training partners, and placement schools

A set of surveys tailored to each ITT stakeholder audience was developed to generate an overarching baseline understanding of how the ITT reforms were implemented in 2024/25 and lay the groundwork for tracking implementation progress and investigating impact across 2025/26 and 2026/27. The surveys were hosted on the SmartSurvey platform and were open from 20th November 2025 to 21st December 2025. In order to aid recruitment, the surveys had a single link that led to branching to questions for each stakeholder group according to the participant’s self-identification. Each took up to 15 minutes to complete.

The survey for trainees was distributed using the SmartSurvey email tool to all 2024/2025 trainees from the ‘Register Trainee Teachers’ service contact list, which was shared by DfE with Alma Economics through a Data Sharing Agreement. Furthermore, representative bodies for ECTs were asked to disseminate the survey through their newsletters (for example, Chartered College of Teaching). The survey was also distributed through a newsletter from the Teaching Schools Hubs Council. The target sample was of 1,000 trainees, and the survey obtained a total of 1,298 responses.

The surveys for accredited providers, training partners, and placement schools were also distributed to all providers on DfE’s contact list through the SmartSurvey email tool and direct emails. The dissemination of the survey was also supported by the Universities Council for the Education of Teachers (UCET) and the National Association of School- Based Teacher Trainers (NASBTT) through their blogs and mailing lists. The Teaching School Hubs Council also shared the surveys with all relevant mailing lists. A total of 74 responses from accredited providers (target sample = 40), 31 responses from training partners (target sample = 60), and 131 responses from placement schools (target sample = 600) were received. A key reason for recruitment targets not being met for all groups was largely due to a delay in the contract start date, which pushed back timelines and created scheduling difficulties (particularly for schools).

Survey responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. Segmentation analysis using relevant respondent characteristics to explore differences across groups was also conducted. Results are shown as percentages when the sample size is above 50. All percentages have been rounded to the nearest integer when reported in the text, which may result in totals that do not add up to exactly 100%. For the survey questions with smaller sample sizes, results are reported as simple counts. The order of responses on the graphs is reported in a way to support clarity and ease of interpretation. For Likert- scale questions with multiple statements, statements are ordered from the most to the least positively rated to help readers identify patterns more easily. For Likert-scale questions with a single statement, response categories are presented in the progression of the scale (for example, from “very effective” to “very ineffective”). For questions without an inherent response order, categories are arranged by response frequency.

All surveys included the opportunity for participants to express interest in participating in a follow-up interview and in later case studies by leaving their contact details in a separate form to maintain anonymity.

Follow-up interviews with trainees, accredited providers, training partners, placement schools, MAT leads, and non-continuing providers

Follow-up interviews were conducted with relevant stakeholders to explore their experiences in greater depth and to understand the underlying reasons behind their perceptions of the ITT reforms and how these are being implemented. Bespoke discussion guides were developed for each participant group to ensure focus was on the most relevant research questions to specific stakeholders and to ensure consistency of approach across different interviewers.

All accredited providers, training partners, and placement schools that expressed interest through the survey were invited to participate in an interview with a member of the research team. A sample of interested trainees was selected based on region, phase, subject, and training route, and were invited to book an interview[footnote 10]. Trainees were offered a £20 Love2Shop voucher for taking part in interviews in recognition of their time and contribution.

The approach was complemented through targeted recruitment for all groups except for trainees. In order to ensure representative coverage, additional accredited providers from the official online list were invited to book an interview based on their location and type of provider. The final sample achieved representation from seven out of nine regions of England and the inclusion of both SCITTs and HEIs. For training partners, a random

sample was obtained from the contact list provided by DfE. Also, from DfE’s contact list, a sample of placement schools was selected based on their postcode to ensure geographic representation, achieving participation from schools in two different regions of England.

Multi-academy trust (MAT) leads that offer ITT placements and non-continuing providers were added as additional stakeholder groups for the interview phase. Non-continuing providers were included to ensure the views of providers who were not implementing the reforms and exited the market were represented, while MAT leads were included to support the understanding of diverse stakeholders in the sector. MAT leads were invited to book an interview through connections with an expert partner, and a list of non-continuing providers was provided by DfE and complemented with a list shared by UCET.

A total of 39 interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams (original target sample was 50): 13 with accredited providers, including 8 with Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and 5 with School-Centred Initial Teacher Training providers (SCITTs), 2 with training partners, 3 with placement schools, 16 with trainees, 2 with non-continuing providers, and 3 with MAT leads. Reaching interview recruitment targets in certain groups was challenging, as lower survey response rates amongst those categories resulted in fewer expressions of interest.

All data collected through the interviews was analysed using thematic analysis, drawing on an analytical framework developed in line with the research questions and discussion guides. The analysis allowed the comparison and contrasting of experiences across the stakeholder groups and understanding of how the reforms have been perceived and implemented by the different actors in the sector.

Case studies

At the time of reporting, case studies are currently underway to examine setting-specific details on what the enablers, barriers, and unintended consequences of the reforms have been and how they have been experienced by ITT trainees, ITT providers, training partners, and placement schools. They are building on the overarching quantitative and qualitative insights drawn from a wide pool of ITT stakeholders to explore how the reforms are being interpreted and enacted at a local level. The evaluation involves a total of nine case studies throughout the three years, with three being undertaken in the first wave.

Case studies for the first wave are being identified from stakeholders who expressed interest through the survey and purposely selected to reflect key variables likely to influence reform implementation, including ITT route, phase (primary or secondary education), partnership size, geographic location, and level of change prompted by reaccreditation.

Each case study is structured around the constituent groups within each partnership: ITT trainees, ITT providers, training partners, and placement schools. ITT providers are acting

as the primary point of entry for setting up each case study, given their leadership role in coordinating partnerships and overseeing programme delivery. A snowball sampling approach is being used, working with each provider to identify and connect relevant stakeholders across their partnership.

Interviews (and, where requested by stakeholders, focus groups) via Microsoft Teams are being conducted separately with ITT providers, training partners, and placement schools with the aim of giving participants a chance to speak candidly about their views on the ITT reforms. Online focus groups are also being conducted with groups of former ITT trainees to provide an opportunity to reflect on their experiences and encourage active discussion. A £30 Love2Shop voucher is being offered to ITT trainees participating in focus groups, reflecting the longer time commitment involved[footnote 11]. The final sampling strategy for individual case studies is being adapted based on the size and structure of individual ITT partnerships. The fieldwork for the case studies is currently ongoing, and therefore, the findings are not included in this report.

Theory-based impact evaluation

As the evaluation is being undertaken in a context where no robust pre-reform baseline data exists and where multiple concurrent policies are influencing overlapping outcomes, contribution analysis offers a credible and proportionate method to assess the added value of the ITT reforms. A contribution analysis approach is being implemented, following a structured six-step iterative process across the three-year evaluation period, with the aim of assessing the extent to which the reforms have contributed to observable and perceived changes across the ITT system.

Step 1: Set out the attribution problem. The attribution problem to be addressed has been set. The contribution questions to be addressed through analysis are whether the ITT reforms made an important contribution to outcomes as expressed through trainee satisfaction and readiness for being an ECT; teacher satisfaction, teaching quality and consistency, and retention; sharing of skills and capacities across the system; and school involvement in ITT.

Step 2: Develop a ToC and identify the risks to it. The initial ToC has been developed, outlining the expected causal pathways from inputs and activities through to outputs, outcomes, and long-term impacts. However, the ToC will remain a work in progress until project completion.

Step 3: Gather existing evidence on the ToC. With the collected data through Wave 1 and the upcoming two waves, all available evidence will be reviewed to test and refine the draft ToC. This includes assessing whether key activities were implemented as planned

and whether anticipated outputs and outcomes have materialised, validating the plausibility of key assumptions within the ToC.

Step 4: Assemble and assess the contribution story and challenges to it. The first version of the contribution story will be constructed after Wave 1 through an evidence- based narrative that assesses how and to what extent the ITT reforms appear to have contributed to observed changes in outputs and early outcomes, specifically after the first year of implementation. The initial draft will be in draft form and refined as further data is gathered in later waves.

Step 5: Seek out additional evidence. Gaps in evidence will be identified to improve the credibility of the contribution narrative. The second and third waves of data collection will support the collection of additional, targeted evidence.

Step 6: Revise and strengthen the contribution story. Following each round of evidence gathering, the elements needed for the contribution story will be reassessed in terms of their strength and credibility through an iterative process in which the ToC and its risks (Step 2) are revisited, and the following steps are refined based on the available evidence and upcoming data collection activities.

Although relevant data has been gathered and is included in this report, the contribution story will be reported in future waves of the evaluation, when additional data has been collected. The final output will be a robust, plausible, and evidence-based written narrative linking the reforms to identified outcomes through analysis of the collected evidence.

Grant funding analysis

In addition to the IPE, the take-up and use of grant funding will be investigated through the three waves of data collection. Through a combination of quantitative and qualitative data collection, the analysis will explore how much funding has reached different types of organisations, the types of activities or costs it has supported, and how stakeholders perceive its adequacy and value. The perceived impact will also be assessed in terms of delivery quality, organisational capacity, and financial planning. In addition, the interaction of funding with other sources of income will be examined. The first wave has now been completed.

Surveys with grant recipients

For this initial wave, a standalone survey was developed targeting finance leads from ITT providers and placement schools. The survey was hosted in SmartSurvey and took no more than 15 minutes to complete. The survey of ITT providers asked about grant take-up, usage, and perceived impact of the five grants introduced to support implementation of the reforms.

A reduced version of the survey was also developed for placement schools, asking specifically about the usage and impact of the partnership, general mentor, lead mentor and ITAP grants. This survey was also hosted in SmartSurvey and took no more than ten minutes to complete.

The survey was sent to the complete list of grant recipients shared by DfE, as well as to all placement schools under their contact list. A total of 67 stakeholders, including 16 accredited providers (4 HEIs and 12 SCITTs) and 41 placement schools, responded to the survey. Although the most recent contact information was provided by DfE, not all of it was up to date, which may partly explain the lower response rate. More detail is explored in the ‘Limitations’ section of this report.

Survey responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. Segmentation analysis was also conducted using relevant respondent characteristics to explore differences across groups.

As with the IPE survey, participants were able to state their interest in participating in a follow-up interview by completing a separate expression of interest form that asked for their contact details.

Follow-up interviews with grant recipients

Follow-up interviews with the finance or ITT leads were then conducted to explore their experiences of funding in greater depth. All participants who expressed interest through the survey were invited to book an interview. The approach was complemented through targeted recruitment for all groups, using email invitations sent to organisations via a list of email addresses provided by DfE. A total of three interviews were conducted, all with SCITTs. Due to the small sample size and lack of representation of HEIs, it is important to note that these findings do not offer a representative view of the sector but provide valuable insight from SCITTs’ perspectives that will be further explored in future waves. Reaching interview recruitment targets was challenging, due to lower survey response rates resulting in fewer expressions of interest.

All data collected in the grant funding interviews was analysed using thematic analysis, drawing on an analytical framework developed in line with the research questions and discussion guides to understand the ways grant recipients used the funding, their perception of usefulness and their experience with the application and claiming processes. Secondary data provided by DfE was also analysed, including grant funding data covering set-up, partnership, general mentor, lead mentor, and ITAP grants to understand how funding was distributed and whether it aligned with what organisations reported as costs.

Limitations

The findings should be interpreted considering some limitations. Recruitment of training partners and placement schools proved more challenging than anticipated. This likely reflects the capacity and time pressures facing schools, particularly during periods of high workload. Compounding this, delays in procurement resulted in an inconvenient timeline and late communication, both of which reduced schools’ ability to engage with the project. As a result, these groups are less represented in the sample than ITT providers, and their perspectives should be interpreted as illustrative rather than representative. The reduced participation from these groups also challenged the ability to fully evaluate the implementation and impact at the school-level, where the impact on teaching quality and readiness for ECT is mainly observed.

Recruitment for the grant funding survey was also challenging, with HEIs underrepresented in the survey sample and follow-up interviews. The Expert Working Group will be consulted on how best to address these imbalances in future waves of the evaluation.

In addition, the distinction between training partners and placement schools is not always clear in practice. Although respondents were asked to identify their role in the IPE survey, some schools may have described themselves as partners even where they would fall within the reform’s definition of a placement school. It is not possible to fully distinguish between these roles in the survey responses, and this should be considered when interpreting findings by stakeholder group. Future waves of data collection will provide clearer definitions for each stakeholder group[footnote 12], including previous terminology (for example, lead partners) for the self-identification of participants.

Stakeholder group distinctions were also unclear in the GFA survey, where some participants identified themselves as belonging to a group ineligible for the grant (for example, placement schools receiving the partnership grant). The available data does not clarify whether this reflects a misclassification error by participants, resource-sharing across partnerships, or confusion between the grants.

Furthermore, because the survey was conducted anonymously to encourage candid responses, it is not possible to identify the number of organisations (providers, partners, and schools) participating in the survey as compared to the total number of individuals completing it.

The trainees involved in the study started their training during the 2024/2025 academic year and, therefore, have been trained under the reformed system. Their views, therefore, reflect perceptions of their current experience rather than any direct comparisons with previous programmes.

Finally, it is important to note that due to the recent implementation of the reforms, the perceived outcomes reported by all stakeholder groups are based on a single cohort (trainees who started ITT during the 2024/2025 academic year). Upcoming waves will provide further understanding of these outcomes, any possible variations, and the inclusion of additional requirements such as the revised ITTECF for the 2025/2026 and 2026/2027 cohorts.

Wave 1 Findings: Implementation and Process Evaluation and Theory-Based Impact Assessment

Findings from the survey with current providers, training partners, placement and non-placement schools, and trainees

Trainees[footnote 13]

A total of 1,298 survey responses were received from trainees. Of these, 70% identified as female, 29% as male, and 1% preferred not to say. When asked whether their identity was the same as their sex registered at birth, 97% responded ‘Yes,’ 2% said ‘No,’ and another 2% responded ‘Prefer not to say.’

In terms of age, 42% of respondents were aged 25-39, 39% were under 25, 18% were aged 40-59, 1% were aged 60 or over, and fewer than 1% preferred not to state their age group. 75% of respondents mentioned being from a White ethnicity, 10% Asian or Asian British, 6% Black, Black British, Caribbean, or African, 4% mixed or multiple ethnic groups, 3% from other ethnic groups, and 2% preferred not to say.

Respondents reported that their accredited ITT providers were located across all regions of England. The largest proportions were in the South East and London (each 18%). This was followed by the North West, South West, and West Midlands (each 12%). Smaller proportions were based in the East Midlands and Yorkshire and the Humber (each 9%), and in the East of England and the North East (each 6%).

Regarding their ITT status, most respondents (67%) reported having completed their programme. A further 23% indicated they were still in training at the time of the survey, while 10% reported withdrawing from the programme[footnote 14]. Trainee withdrawals were usually attributed to the following factors[footnote 15]:

• Lack of support from mentors. This was the most frequently reported reason,

cited by just over 30% of respondents who withdrew (41 respondents). They reported poor-quality or absent mentoring, stating feedback was delivered in vague, contradictory, or humiliating ways.

• Unsustainable workload and poor work-life balance. The second most reported

reason, cited by around 30% of respondents who withdrew (39 respondents). These trainees reported working more than 60 hours a week, including evenings and weekends, and experiencing long placement days (often having to be more than 12 hours away from home). Some trainees also felt unable to balance training with family responsibilities, caring duties, pregnancy, childcare, or existing health conditions.

• Bullying, harassment, and toxic culture. Cited by around 22% of respondents

who withdrew (28 respondents). These trainees reported instances of mentors or senior staff undermining them, spreading rumours, or deliberately setting them up to fail. Hostile staffroom cultures left some trainees feeling unwelcome, isolated, or treated as a nuisance. Some others also reported discrimination related to race, ethnicity, gender identity, religion, disability, neurodivergence, or international status.

• Reconsideration of teaching as a career. For approximately 10% of trainees who

withdrew (14 respondents), exposure to school working conditions led them to question whether teaching was the right long-term career. Reasons included poor pay relative to workload and responsibility, limited professional autonomy and high surveillance, perceptions that schools are increasingly data-driven and business- like rather than person-centred, and observing widespread dissatisfaction and burnout among experienced teachers. In some cases, trainees’ comparisons between teaching and their previous careers, particularly those that offered better working conditions and improved work-life balance, contributed to their dissatisfaction with the profession.

• Financial barriers. Over 7% of trainees who withdrew (9 respondents) reported

finding it difficult to maintain employment alongside training due to an intense workload, while others faced large upfront fees for tuition or accommodation.

• Mental health impacts. Some trainees mentioned they withdrew due to serious health consequences, often linked to the reasons mentioned above.

In terms of training routes, just over half of respondents (52%) undertook a postgraduate, fee-funded route. This was followed by undergraduate routes (18%), SDS routes (7%), postgraduate teaching apprenticeships (PGTA, 6%), and the HPITT route (4%). A further 13% reported undertaking other training routes, such as the Assessment Only route. Additionally, 57% selected the secondary phase for their ITT, while 43% selected the primary phase.

The most commonly reported subject specialisation among secondary trainees was English (10%), Mathematics (7%), and Modern Foreign Languages (6%). Physics was selected by 5% of respondents, while Chemistry, Biology, Geography, and History were each selected by 3%. Art & Design, Computing, Design and Technology, Physical Education, and Religious Education were each selected by 2% of respondents, and

Business Studies and Music by 1% each. A further 6% of respondents selected “Other subjects,” specifying areas such as Food and Nutrition, Photography, Dance, Social Science, and Sociology, among others.

59% of respondents reported that their ITT was delivered or is being delivered by a HEI, while 36% reported that it was delivered by a SCITT provider. The remaining 5% of respondents selected other delivery options, each accounting for 1% or less.

Among respondents who had completed the ITT programme (n = 875), 76% had secured employment as a qualified teacher by the time they completed the survey (which was available between 24/11/2025 and 21/12/2025)[footnote 16]. Of those who had secured a teaching post (n = 661), just over half (51%) were working in an academy (state-funded mainstream), while 24% were employed in a local authority–maintained school (state- funded mainstream). Smaller proportions were working in independent (private) schools (8%), special schools (4%), or free schools (3%). A further 3% reported being unsure of their school type, and the remaining 7% selected other options such as any/all of the above, grammar schools, forest schools or outside the UK.

Satisfaction with the ITT programme

As seen in Figure 1 below, the majority of respondents (71%) mentioned being satisfied or very satisfied with the ITT. Levels of satisfaction ranged by 7 percentage points across regions; the South East reported the highest satisfaction (75% satisfied or very satisfied), while the East of England reported the lowest (68% satisfied or very satisfied). Satisfaction levels by phase of ITT ranged by 4 percentage points, with 74% of respondents in the primary phase and 70% in the secondary phase reporting that they were satisfied or very satisfied.

Figure 1. How satisfied were/are you with ITT? (n = 1,298) Very satisfied 21% Satisfied 50% Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 11% Dissatisfied 10% Very dissatisfied 7% Prefer not to say 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% In general, trainees reported high levels of satisfaction across all elements of the ITT programme. Satisfaction was strongest for practising through school placements, with 77% of respondents reporting that they were either very satisfied or satisfied. High levels of satisfaction were also reported for ITT mentoring (70% very satisfied or satisfied), although this element also had the second-highest proportion of dissatisfaction (18% dissatisfied or very dissatisfied).

A total of 74% of trainees reported that they were very satisfied or satisfied with the content of the curriculum, while 12% expressed being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Assessment activities received slightly lower but still positive ratings, with 62% reporting that they were very satisfied or satisfied and 17% dissatisfied or very dissatisfied (Figure 2).

The ITAP elements received the lowest overall satisfaction ratings, with 59% reporting that they were very satisfied or satisfied and 22% reporting feeling dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Across all elements, between 8% and 20% of respondents reported feeling neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, and very few selected ‘prefer not to say.’

Figure 2. How satisfied were/are you with each of these elements of the ITT? (n = 1,298)

Practising through school placements ITT mentoring The content of the curriculum Assessments Intensive Training and Practice elements 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Prefer not to say When segmented by training route, patterns presented some variation in levels of satisfaction.

Practising through school placements:

• Undergraduate (n = 228): 83% of respondents reported being satisfied or very

satisfied with this element, 9% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, while 7% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. The remaining respondents (1%) preferred not to answer.

• Postgraduate, fee-funded (n = 675): 76% of respondents reported being satisfied or

very satisfied with this element, 17% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, while 7% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

• School Direct – Postgraduate, salaried (n = 95): 79% of respondents reported being

satisfied or very satisfied with this element, 14% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, while 7% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

ITT mentoring:

• Undergraduate (n = 228): 68% of respondents reported being satisfied or very

satisfied with this element, 15% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, while 17% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

• Postgraduate, fee-funded (n = 675): 71% of respondents reported being satisfied or very satisfied with this element, 19% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, while 9%

were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. The remaining respondents (1%) preferred not to answer.

• School Direct – Postgraduate, salaried (n = 95): 69% of respondents reported being

satisfied or very satisfied with this element, 19% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, while 9% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. The remaining respondents (2%) preferred not to answer.

The content of the curriculum:

• Undergraduate (n = 228): 73% of respondents reported being satisfied or very

satisfied with this element, 11% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, while 17% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

• Postgraduate, fee-funded (n = 675): 74% of respondents reported being satisfied or

very satisfied with this element, 12% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, while 14% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

• School Direct – Postgraduate, salaried (n = 95): 76% of respondents reported being

satisfied or very satisfied with this element, 19% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, while 5% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

Assessments:

• Undergraduate (n = 228): 58% of respondents reported being satisfied or very

satisfied with this element, 18% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, while 24% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

• Postgraduate, fee-funded (n = 675): 60% of respondents reported being satisfied or

very satisfied with this element, 19% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, while 21% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

• School Direct – Postgraduate, salaried (n = 95): 72% of respondents reported being

satisfied or very satisfied with this element, 13% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, while 16% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

ITAP elements:

• Undergraduate (n = 228): 55% of respondents reported being satisfied or very

satisfied with this element, 21% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, while 24% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

• Postgraduate, fee-funded (n = 675): 56% of respondents reported being satisfied or

very satisfied with this element, 25% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, while 19% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

• School Direct – Postgraduate, salaried (n = 95): 71% of respondents reported being

satisfied or very satisfied with this element, 17% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, while 13% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

Looking at the phase of training, similar trends were observed. Among primary trainees, practising through school placements was the element with the highest satisfaction, with 80% stating to be either very satisfied or satisfied, followed by curriculum content (77%). In contrast, ITAP and mentoring were the elements with which primary trainees were least satisfied, with the highest proportion stating they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied (18% for ITAP and 17% for mentoring).

Among secondary trainees, practising through school placements (76%) and curriculum content (73%) were the elements with the highest satisfaction across the requirements, with the greatest percentage of secondary trainees marking stating they were very satisfied or satisfied, while ITAP elements and ITT mentoring were the elements with the highest levels of dissatisfaction, with 26% trainees reporting being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with ITAP and 20% with mentoring.

Satisfaction also varied by the region in which the accredited ITT provider was located, for example:

• Practising through school placements: The highest levels of satisfaction were

reported by trainees whose ITT provider was located in the South West (82% satisfied or very satisfied). The highest proportion of respondents reporting being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied was among trainees from providers in the North East (17%).

• ITT mentoring: Trainees from ITT providers located in the West Midlands reported

the highest satisfaction with mentoring (75% satisfied or very satisfied). In contrast, the highest proportion of trainees reporting being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied was among those from providers in the North West (24%).

• Curriculum content: Trainees from providers in the South East reported the

highest satisfaction with curriculum content (80% satisfied or very satisfied), while trainees from providers in the North West were most likely to report dissatisfaction (18% dissatisfied or very dissatisfied).

• ITAP: Satisfaction was highest among trainees from ITT providers located in

London (63% very satisfied or satisfied). The highest levels of dissatisfaction were reported by trainees from providers in the North West (28% dissatisfied or very dissatisfied).

• Assessments: Trainees from ITT providers located in the South West reported the

highest satisfaction with assessments (69% very satisfied or satisfied), while those from providers in the North West reported the highest levels of dissatisfaction (26% dissatisfied or very dissatisfied).

Outcomes of the ITT programme for trainees

Additionally, 81% of trainees reported feeling, or expecting to feel, ready or very ready to teach, either at the time of the survey (if already qualified) or by the end of their ITT programme (for those currently in training), as seen in Figure 3. In contrast, 8% reported feeling unready or very unready. These figures varied by 10 percentage points across regions. London reported the highest proportion of trainees feeling ready or very ready to teach (85%), while the East of England reported the lowest (75%). The highest proportions of trainees reporting feeling unready or very unready were in the East of England and the North East (both 11%), while London reported the lowest proportion (4%). Differences by ITT phase were small. Among secondary trainees, 82% reported feeling ready or very ready to teach, compared with 79% of primary trainees.

Figure 3. How would you rate your readiness to teach, or if you are still in the programme, how would you expect your readiness to teach to be at the end of ITT? (n = 1,298)

Very ready to teach 30% Ready to teach 51% Neither ready nor unready 10% Unready to teach 5% Very unready to teach 3% Prefer not to say 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Trainees perceived that all elements of the ITT programme were overall effective in supporting their readiness to teach. The element perceived as the most effective among trainees was practising through school placements, with 86% of respondents reporting that this element was either very effective or effective. This element also had the lowest levels of perceived ineffectiveness, with only 8% reporting that it was ineffective or very ineffective.

As seen in Figure 4, high levels of perceived effectiveness were also reported for ITT mentoring, with 71% of trainees indicating that it was very effective or effective. However, 14% reported that mentoring was ineffective or very ineffective. Similarly, 70% of trainees reported that the content of the curriculum was very effective or effective in supporting their readiness to teach, while 12% reported that it was ineffective or very ineffective.

A lower perception of effectiveness was reported for the ITAP elements, with 58% reporting that these were very effective or effective, and 22% reporting that they were ineffective or very ineffective. Assessments received similar ratings, with 53% reporting that they were very effective or effective, and 23% reporting that they were ineffective or very ineffective.

Figure 4. How effective was/is each of these elements in supporting your readiness to teach? (n = 1,298)

Practising through school placements ITT mentoring The content of the curriculum Intensive Training and Practice elements Assessments 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very effective Effective Neither effective nor ineffective Ineffective Very ineffective Prefer not to say When segmented by training route, patterns were broadly consistent, with some variation in perceived effectiveness. For undergraduate trainees, practising through school placements was rated most effective, with 90% of respondents reporting it as very effective or effective, followed by the content of the curriculum (62%). The highest levels of perceived ineffectiveness were reported for ITAP elements, with 21% rating them as ineffective or very ineffective, followed by assessments (20%). Among postgraduate fee- funded trainees, practising through school placements was again rated most effective, with 84% rating it as very effective or effective, followed by curriculum content (72%), while assessments (25%) and ITAP elements (25%) were reported as least effective when combining ineffective and very ineffective.

Looking at the phase of training, similar trends were observed. For primary trainees, practising through school placements was perceived as most effective (88%), followed by the curriculum content (72%), with the highest proportion of primary trainees rating them as very effective or effective. Assessments (20%) and ITAP elements (17%) were the elements most often rated as ineffective or very ineffective. Among secondary trainees, practising through school placements (84%) and ITT mentoring (72%) were more frequently reported as very effective or effective, while ITAP elements (26%) and

assessments (24%) were perceived as least effective, with the highest proportion of trainees rating them ineffective or very ineffective.

Perceptions also varied by the region in which the accredited ITT provider was located, for example:

• Practising through school placements: The highest perceived effectiveness of

this element was reported in the South West (89% very effective or effective), while the highest proportion rating this element as ineffective or very ineffective was in the North West (13%).

• ITT mentoring: Yorkshire and the Humber reported the highest effectiveness of

this element (80% very effective or effective), while the North East had the highest proportion rating mentoring as ineffective or very ineffective (21%).

• Curriculum content: Trainees in London reported the highest effectiveness of this

element (75% effective or very effective), while the North West had the highest proportion reporting ineffectiveness (18%).

• ITAP: Effectiveness of this element was highest in London (65% effective or very

effective), with the North West again reporting the highest perceived ineffectiveness (28% ineffective or very ineffective).

• Assessments: Trainees from London reported the highest effectiveness of this

element (58% effective or very effective), while the North West had the highest proportion rating assessments as ineffective or very ineffective (31%).

Looking to the future, 74% of respondents reported that they were likely or very likely to remain in the teaching profession for at least the next five years, including nearly half (49%) who said they were very likely. In contrast, 12% reported being unlikely or very unlikely to remain in teaching, while 14% said they were unsure (Figure 5).

Figure 5. At this point in time, how likely do you think it is that you will remain in the teaching profession for at least the next five years? (n = 1,169)

Very likely 49% Somewhat likely 25% Unsure 14% Somewhat unlikely 6% Very unlikely 6% Prefer not to say 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% When asked “What type of school have you considered working in as you continue your teaching career?”, 30% of respondents mentioned an academy (state-funded mainstream) and 27% a local authority-maintained school (state-funded mainstream). A further 12% were unsure. Smaller proportions considered an independent (private) school (11%), a special school (6%), or a free school (6%). Only 1% mentioned a hospital school, pupil referral unit, or alternative provision. The remaining 6% selected “other,” with each option chosen by fewer than 1% of respondents, including answers like any school, forest schools, foreign school, grammar school, among others. Respondents were able to select only one option.

Trainees perceived that the elements of the ITT programme contributed to their willingness to stay in the profession to varying degrees, as seen in Figure 6 below. Practising through school placements was perceived as the most effective element, with 76% of trainees reporting that it was either very effective or effective. This element also had the lowest levels of perceived ineffectiveness, with 14% reporting that it was ineffective or very ineffective. Lower levels of perceived effectiveness were reported for ITT mentoring, with 66% of trainees indicating that mentoring was very effective or effective in influencing their willingness to remain in teaching. However, 18% reported that mentoring was ineffective or very ineffective.

The content of the curriculum was also viewed positively, with 60% of trainees reporting that it was very effective or effective, while 17% considered it ineffective or very ineffective.

Lower levels of perceived effectiveness were reported for the ITAP elements, with 49% of trainees rating these as very effective or effective, and 26% reporting that they were ineffective or very ineffective. Assessments received the lowest ratings overall, with 43% reporting that they were very effective or effective in influencing their willingness to stay in

the profession, compared with 27% who reported that they were ineffective or very ineffective.

Figure 6. How effective was/is each of these elements of your training in determining your willingness to stay in the profession? (n = 1,298)

Practising through school placements ITT mentoring The content of the curriculum Intensive Training and Practice Elements Assessments 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very effective Effective Neither effective nor ineffective Ineffective Very ineffective Prefer not to say

Accredited providers

A total of 74 responses were received from individuals working in accredited ITT provider organisations. Of these, 15 (20%) deliver ITT in the East of England, 14 (19%) in London, 14 (19%) in the South East, 12 (16%) in Yorkshire and the Humber, 10 (14%) in the West Midlands, 9 (12%) in the North West, 10 (14%) in the South West, 7 (9%) in the East Midlands, and 6 (8%) in the North East[footnote 17].

Of the 74 respondents, 41 (55%) were HEIs, 32 (43%) were SCITT providers, and 1 (1%) identified as another type of provider (a non-SCITT ITT provider).

In terms of ITT routes offered, the majority of respondents, 71 (96%), mentioned their institution offers postgraduate, fee-funded routes. In addition, 27 (36%) offer postgraduate, salaried routes, 25 (34%) offer undergraduate routes, and 25 (34%) offer postgraduate teaching apprenticeships. Two respondents (3%) reported offering the HPITT route. Three respondents also reported offering other routes, including Assessment Only and Early Years Teacher Status (EYTS).

Role and responsibilities

When asked which description best reflected their organisation’s role in delivering ITT prior to the 2022 reforms, the majority (69, 93%) reported that they were an ITT provider. Four respondents (5%) stated that they were not delivering ITT before the reforms, and 1 respondent (1%) reported delivering some elements of ITT in partnership with other providers (for example, School Direct).

Among the 41 responses from individuals working in HEIs, 38 (93%) were ITT providers, 2 (5%) were not delivering ITT until the reforms, and 1 (2%) was delivering some elements of ITT along with other providers (for example, School Direct). Similarly, among the 32 responses from individuals working in SCITTs, 30 (94%) were an ITT provider, and 2 (6%) were not delivering ITT until the reforms.

Overall, most respondents (61, 82%) indicated that their organisation’s role did not change as a result of the reforms, while 13 (18%) reported that it did. Among those reporting a change, this involved becoming an accredited provider for other organisations, not getting accredited, entering the ITT market, organisational growth or expansion, and changes to delivery arrangements. Among respondents working in HEIs, most (34; 83%) reported no change in their organisation’s role, while seven (17%) indicated that it had changed. Similarly, among those working in SCITTs, the majority (27; 84%) reported no change, compared to five (16%) who reported a change.

These changes were usually driven by accreditation outcomes and strategic considerations. For example, 7 respondents (5 from HEIs and 2 from SCITTs) mentioned their organisations became accredited providers where partner institutions lost or failed to secure reaccreditation, often to ensure continuity of local ITT provision. Other reasons for the change in their organisation’s role included the need to strengthen and grow provision for financial sustainability and business planning, the introduction of alternative teacher training routes beyond PGCE, and increased partnership working, as smaller SCITTs lacked the capacity to apply independently for accreditation. Of the 13 providers who reported changes, 4 were extremely satisfied with the changes (3 SCITT and 1 HEI), 3 were somewhat satisfied (1 SCITT, 1 HEI, and 1 from an ITT provider (not SCITT), 3 were neither satisfied nor unsatisfied (2 HEIs and 1 SCITT), and 3 were extremely unsatisfied (All HEIs).

Partnerships

In relation to partnerships developed in response to the reforms (defined here as partnerships between multiple organisations to provide different elements of ITT, excluding placement schools), 27 respondents (36%) reported that their organisations did not establish a partnership and are not currently part of one for the delivery of ITT (15 respondents from HEI [37%] and 12 from SCITT [38%]).

Nineteen respondents (26%) reported that they were already part of a partnership prior to the reforms (7 respondents from HEI [17%] and 12 from SCITT [38%]). A further 17 respondents (23%) stated that they established a partnership after the reforms and remain in that partnership (13 respondents from HEIs [32%], 2 from SCITT [6%] and 1 from a non- SCITT ITT provider). In contrast, 3 respondents (4%) reported that they established a partnership after the reforms but have since ended it and are not currently in a partnership (2 respondents from SCITTs [6%] and 1 from a HEI [2%]). The remaining 8 respondents (11%) responded they were in ‘other’ situations regarding partnerships (5 respondents from HEIs and 3 from SCITTs).

Experiences of establishing partnerships after the reforms were mixed. Some described the process as easy or manageable, with benefits such as strengthened collaboration, improved curriculum, clearer shared visions, and opportunities to reflect critically on practice. However, other responses emphasised significant challenges, which included the process being time-consuming, administratively complex, financially risky, and significantly stressful. In addition, some other respondents highlighted poor communication and contradictory guidance from DfE.

Adaptions made due to the reforms

When asked whether they had made changes to their training programme in response to the reforms, excluding the new ITAP element[footnote 18], almost half of the respondents (36; 49%) reported that the changes had been significant. This included 21 respondents from HEIs (51% of HEI respondents) and 15 from SCITTs (47% of SCITT respondents).

A further 32 respondents (43%) reported making only small changes to their programme (17 HEI respondents [41%], 14 SCITT respondents [44%], and 1 respondent from a non- SCITT ITT provider). Only 4 respondents (5%) indicated that they had not modified their programme (2 HEI respondents [5%] and 2 SCITT respondents [6%]), while two respondents (3%) reported being unsure whether any changes had been made (1 HEI [2%] and 1 SCITT [3%]).

As seen in Figure 7, the elements of ITT programmes most frequently reported as requiring a large number of changes were the identification and training of general mentors, collaboration with ITAP providers, and identification and training of lead mentors, each cited by 32 respondents (43%). The development of the ITT curriculum was the element most commonly reported as having undergone change, with 56 respondents (76%) indicating that it required either a large number of changes (27; 36%) or some changes (29; 39%). In contrast, the elements most frequently reported as requiring no changes at all were collaboration with Teaching School Hubs, cited by 36 respondents (49%), and the development of formative assessments and collaboration with training

partners (formerly named lead partners), with both elements cited by 21 respondents (28%).

Figure 7. How much change was needed for each of the following elements of your programme? (n = 74)

Collaboration with Teaching School Hubs Development of formative assessments Collaboration with training partners (formerly called lead partners) Implementation of a quality assurance framework Collaboration with intensive training and practice providers Collaboration with placement schools Identification and training of lead mentors Identification and training of general mentors Development of the ITT curriculum 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% No changes at all A few changes Some changes A large number of changes Unsure Prefer not to say When results are segmented by organisation type, some differences are identified by element.

• Collaboration with Teaching School Hubs: 3 HEI respondents (7%) reported that

a large number of changes were required for this element, 12 (29%) reported some or a few changes, and 19 (46%) reported no changes. Among SCITT respondents, 14 (43%) reported a large number of changes, 17 (53%) reported some or a few changes, and 1 (3%) reported no changes.

• Development of formative assessments: 12 HEI respondents (29%) reported

that a large number of changes were required for this element, 16 (39%) reported some or a few changes, and 7 (17%) reported no changes. Among SCITT

respondents, 1 (3%) reported a large number of changes, 19 (59%) reported some or a few changes, and 10 (31%) reported no changes.

• Collaboration with training partners (formerly called lead partners): 14 HEI

respondents (34%) reported that a large number of changes were required for this element, 12 (29%) reported some or a few changes, and 6 (15%) reported no changes. Among SCITT respondents, 2 (6%) reported a large number of changes, 10 (31%) reported some or a few changes, and 15 (47%) reported no changes.

• Implementation of a quality assurance framework: 12 HEI respondents (29%)

reported that a large number of changes were required for this element, 16 (39%) reported some or a few changes, and 7 (17%) reported no changes. Among SCITT respondents, 2 (6%) reported a large number of changes, 22 (69%) reported some or a few changes, and 5 (16%) reported no changes.

• Collaboration with intensive training and practice providers: 21 HEI

respondents (51%) reported that a large number of changes were required for this element, 9 (22%) reported some or a few changes, and 5 (12%) reported no changes. Among SCITT respondents, 11 (34%) reported a large number of changes, 14 (44%) reported some or a few changes, and 6 (19%) reported no changes.

• Collaboration with placement schools: 11 HEI respondents (27%) reported that

a large number of changes were required for this element, 22 (54%) reported some or a few changes, and 3 (7%) reported no changes. Among SCITT respondents, 3 (9%) reported a large number of changes, 22 (69%) reported some or a few changes, and 5 (16%) reported no changes.

• Identification and training of general mentors: 20 HEI respondents (49%)

reported that a large number of changes were required for this element, 14 (34%) reported some or a few changes, and 2 (5%) reported no changes. Among SCITT respondents, 12 (38%) reported a large number of changes, 17 (53%) reported some or a few changes, and 2 (6%) reported no changes.

• Identification and training of lead mentors: 22 HEI respondents (54%) reported

that a large number of changes were required for this element, 13 (22%) reported some or a few changes, and 1 (2%) reported no changes. Among SCITT respondents, 10 (31%) reported a large number of changes, 16 (50%) reported some or a few changes, and 4 (13%) reported no changes.

• Development of the ITT curriculum: 17 HEI respondents (41%) reported that a

large number of changes were required for this element, 18 (44%) reported some or a few changes, and 2 (5%) reported no changes. Among SCITT respondents, 9 (28%) reported a large number of changes, 21 (66%) reported some or a few changes, and 1 (3%) reported no changes.

In Figure 8, it is possible to see that the elements most frequently reported as difficult to implement were the design of ITAP, with 45 respondents (61%) describing this as somewhat or very difficult (32; 43% and 13; 18%, respectively), and the identification and training of general mentors, reported as somewhat or very difficult by 46% of respondents. Collaboration with placement schools was also reported as challenging, with 34 respondents (46%) indicating that implementation was somewhat or very difficult.

In contrast, several elements were more commonly perceived to be neither easy nor difficult to implement. Half of the respondents (50%) reported that collaboration with other training partners was neither easy nor difficult, while 36 (49%) reported the same for the development of formative assessments. Similarly, 30 respondents (41%) indicated that collaboration with Teaching School Hubs (as training partners) was neither easy nor difficult.

The implementation of a quality assurance framework and the development of the curriculum were generally viewed as less challenging, with the majority of respondents describing these as very easy, somewhat easy, or neither easy nor difficult (see Figure 8). Reports of these elements being very difficult were rare.

Figure 8. How easy or difficult has it been to implement the changes to each of the following elements of your programme in response to the reforms? (n = 74)

Collaboration with Teaching School Hubs (as training partners) Development of formative assessments Development of curriculum Implementation of a quality assurance framework Identification and training of lead mentors Identification and training of general mentors Collaboration with placement schools Collaboration with other training partners Collaboration with intensive training and practice providers Design of intensive training and practice 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very easy Somewhat easy Not easy nor difficult Somewhat difficult Very difficult Prefer not to say When results are segmented by organisation type, some differences are identified.

• Design of intensive training and practice: 9 HEI respondents (22%) reported this

element was very or somewhat easy to implement, 5 (12%) considered it not easy nor difficult to implement, and 22 (54%) found it very or somewhat difficult to implement. Among SCITT respondents, 6 (19%) reported that this element was very or somewhat easy to implement, 3 (9%) not easy nor difficult, and 23 (72%) very or somewhat difficult to implement.

• Collaboration with intensive training and practice providers: 8 HEI

respondents (20%) reported this element was very or somewhat easy to implement, 12 (29%) considered it not easy nor difficult to implement, and 13 (31%) found it very or somewhat difficult to implement. Among SCITT respondents, 7 (22%) reported that this element was very or somewhat easy to implement, 11 (34%) not easy nor difficult, and 12 (38%) very or somewhat difficult to implement.

• Collaboration with other training partners: 5 HEI respondents (12%) reported

this element was very or somewhat easy to implement, 19 (46%) considered it not easy nor difficult to implement, and 8 (20%) found it very or somewhat difficult to implement. Among SCITT respondents, 8 (25%) reported that this element was very or somewhat easy to implement, 18 (56%) not easy nor difficult, and 5 (16%) very or somewhat difficult to implement.

• Collaboration with placement schools: 14 HEI respondents (34%) reported this

element was very or somewhat easy to implement, 4 (10%) considered it not easy nor difficult to implement, and 18 (44%) found it very or somewhat difficult to implement. Among SCITT respondents, 8 (25%) reported that this element was very or somewhat easy to implement, 8 (25%) not easy nor difficult, and 16 (50%) very or somewhat difficult to implement.

• Identification and training of general mentors: 8 HEI respondents (20%)

reported this element was very or somewhat easy to implement, 6 (15%) considered it not easy nor difficult to implement, and 22 (54%) found it very or somewhat difficult to implement. Among SCITT respondents, 8 (25%) reported that this element was very or somewhat easy to implement, 12 (38%) not easy nor difficult, and 12 (38%) very or somewhat difficult to implement.

• Identification and training of lead mentors: 11 HEI respondents (27%) reported

this element was very or somewhat easy to implement, 6 (15%) considered it not easy nor difficult to implement, and 19 (46%) found it very or somewhat difficult to implement. Among SCITT respondents, 15 (47%) reported that this element was very or somewhat easy to implement, 11 (34%) not easy nor difficult, and 6 (19%) very or somewhat difficult to implement.

• Implementation of a quality assurance framework: 14 HEI respondents (34%) reported this element was very or somewhat easy to implement, 15 (37%)

considered it not easy nor difficult to implement, and 7 (17%) found it very or somewhat difficult to implement. Among SCITT respondents, 14 (44%) reported that this element was very or somewhat easy to implement, 13 (41%) not easy nor difficult, and 5 (16%) very or somewhat difficult to implement.

• Development of curriculum: 16 HEI respondents (39%) reported this element was

very or somewhat easy to implement, 7 (17%) considered it not easy nor difficult to implement, and 14 (34%) found it very or somewhat difficult to implement. Among SCITT respondents, 12 (38%) reported that this element was very or somewhat easy to implement, 10 (31%) not easy nor difficult, and 10 (31%) very or somewhat difficult to implement.

• Development of formative assessments: 13 HEI respondents (32%) reported this

element was very or somewhat easy to implement, 21 (51%) considered it not easy nor difficult to implement, and 2 (5%) found it very or somewhat difficult to implement. Among SCITT respondents, 14 (44%) reported that this element was very or somewhat easy to implement, 15 (47%) not easy nor difficult, and 3 (9%) very or somewhat difficult to implement.

• Collaboration with Teaching School Hubs (as training partners): 9 HEI

respondents (22%) reported this element was very or somewhat easy to implement, 17 (41%) considered it not easy nor difficult to implement, and 4 (10%) found it very or somewhat difficult to implement. Among SCITT respondents, 12 (38%) reported that this element was very or somewhat easy to implement, 12 (37%) not easy nor difficult, and 5 (16%) very or somewhat difficult to implement.

Effectiveness of reforms

The elements most frequently rated as effective or very effective were the design of ITAP, with 51 respondents (69%) selecting these options (43% effective and 26% very effective), and the development of the curriculum, rated as effective or very effective by 58% of respondents. The implementation of a quality assurance framework was also viewed positively overall, with 49% rating it as effective or very effective (Figure 9).

Some other elements were most commonly rated as neither effective nor ineffective. This included collaboration with other training partners and collaboration with Teaching School Hubs (as training partners), each reported as neutral by 34 respondents (46%), as well as the development of formative assessments (31 respondents; 42%).

Across all elements, relatively small proportions of respondents reported that changes were ineffective or very ineffective in supporting the quality of their training. The highest combined proportions of negative ratings were reported for the identification and training of general mentors (19 respondents; 26%) and collaboration with placement schools (15 respondents; 20%).

Figure 9. How effective do you think this element of ITT has been, following the reforms, in supporting the quality of your training? (n = 74)

Design of intensive training and practice Development of curriculum Identification and training of lead mentors Implementation of a quality assurance framework Development of formative assessments Collaboration with intensive training and practice providers Collaboration with placement schools Collaboration with Teaching School Hubs (as training partners) Identification and training of general mentors Collaboration with other training partners 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very effective Effective Neither effective nor ineffective Ineffective Very ineffective Prefer not to say When results are segmented by organisation type, some differences are identified.

• Design of intensive training and practice: 22 HEI respondents (51%) reported

this element was effective or very effective in supporting the quality of their training, 9 (22%) considered it ineffective or very ineffective, and 8 (20%) found it neither effective nor ineffective; the rest of the respondents preferred not to provide an answer. Among SCITT respondents, 29 (91%) reported this element was effective or very effective in supporting the quality of their training, 1 (3%) considered it ineffective or very ineffective, and 2 (6%) found it neither effective nor ineffective.

• Development of curriculum: 14 HEI respondents (34%) reported this element was

effective or very effective in supporting the quality of their training, 12 (29%) considered it ineffective or very ineffective, and 12 (29%) found it neither effective nor ineffective; the rest of the respondents preferred not to provide an answer. Among SCITT respondents, 28 (88%) reported this element was effective or very

effective in supporting the quality of their training, and 4 (12%) found it neither effective nor ineffective.

• Identification and training of lead mentors: 13 HEI respondents (32%) reported

this element was effective or very effective in supporting the quality of their training, 11 (27%) considered it ineffective or very ineffective, and 13 (32%) found it neither effective nor ineffective; the rest of the respondents preferred not to provide an answer. Among SCITT respondents, 20 (63%) reported this element was effective or very effective in supporting the quality of their training, 1 (3%) considered it ineffective or very ineffective, and 11 (34%) found it neither effective nor ineffective.

• Implementation of a quality assurance framework: 15 HEI respondents (37%)

reported this element was effective or very effective in supporting the quality of their training, 7 (17%) considered it ineffective or very ineffective, and 14 (34%) found it neither effective nor ineffective; the rest of the respondents preferred not to provide an answer. Among SCITT respondents, 20 (63%) reported this element was effective or very effective in supporting the quality of their training, 1 (3%) considered it ineffective or very ineffective, and 11 (34%) found it neither effective nor ineffective.

• Development of formative assessments: 10 HEI respondents (24%) reported this

element was effective or very effective in supporting the quality of their training, 6 (15%) considered it ineffective or very ineffective, and 21 (51%) found it neither effective nor ineffective; the rest of the respondents preferred not to provide an answer. Among SCITT respondents, 21 (66%) reported this element was effective or very effective in supporting the quality of their training, 1 (3%) considered it ineffective or very ineffective, and 10 (31%) found it neither effective nor ineffective.

• Collaboration with intensive training and practice providers: 10 HEI

respondents (24%) reported this element was effective or very effective in supporting the quality of their training, 11 (27%) considered it ineffective or very ineffective, and 15 (37%) found it neither effective nor ineffective; the rest of the respondents preferred not to provide an answer. Among SCITT respondents, 21 (66%) reported this element was effective or very effective in supporting the quality of their training, 1 (3%) considered it ineffective or very ineffective, and 10 (31%) found it neither effective nor ineffective.

• Collaboration with placement schools: 12 HEI respondents (29%) reported this

element was effective or very effective in supporting the quality of their training, 12 (29%) considered it ineffective or very ineffective, and 13 (32%) found it neither effective nor ineffective; the rest of the respondents preferred not to provide an answer. Among SCITT respondents, 19 (59%) reported this element was effective or very effective in supporting the quality of their training, 3 (9%) considered it ineffective or very ineffective, and 10 (31%) found it neither effective nor ineffective.

• Collaboration with Teaching School Hubs (as training partners): 5 HEI

respondents (12%) reported this element was effective or very effective in supporting the quality of their training, 12 (29%) considered it ineffective or very ineffective, and 19 (46%) found it neither effective nor ineffective; the rest of the respondents preferred not to provide an answer. Among SCITT respondents, 12 (38%) reported this element was effective or very effective in supporting the quality of their training, 4 (12%) considered it ineffective or very ineffective, and 15 (47%) found it neither effective nor ineffective; the rest of the respondents preferred not to provide an answer.

• Identification and training of general mentors: 15 HEI respondents (37%)

reported this element was effective or very effective in supporting the quality of their training, 15 (37%) considered it ineffective or very ineffective, and 7 (17%) found it neither effective nor ineffective; the rest of the respondents preferred not to provide an answer. Among SCITT respondents, 18 (56%) reported this element was effective or very effective in supporting the quality of their training, 4 (13%) considered it ineffective or very ineffective, and 10 (31%) found it neither effective nor ineffective.

• Collaboration with other training partners: 7 HEI respondents (17%) reported

this element was effective or very effective in supporting the quality of their training, 11 (27%) considered it ineffective or very ineffective, and 18 (44%) found it neither effective nor ineffective; the rest of the respondents preferred not to provide an answer. Among SCITT respondents, 14 (44%) reported this element was effective or very effective in supporting the quality of their training, 2 (6%) considered it ineffective or very ineffective, and 16 (50%) found it neither effective nor ineffective.

Training partners

A total of 31 responses were received from individuals working in training partner organisations (formerly called lead partners) who formed part of an accredited partnership. Given the relatively small sample size for this group, the findings should be interpreted with caution. They may not be representative of the wider population of training partners and instead reflect the experiences of the respondents who participated in the survey.

Eight responses were from training partners in London and six from the South East. The remaining responses were distributed across the South West, West Midlands, East Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the North East (three responses each), with two responses from the East of England and one from the North West.

In terms of the training routes offered, most of the 31 respondents reported offering a postgraduate, fee-funded route (24 partners). Fourteen partners reported offering a Postgraduate Teaching Apprenticeship (PGTA), and 13 offered SDS routes. Five partners

offered an undergraduate route, and none reported offering the HPITT route. Thirteen respondents mentioned their programme covered both primary and secondary phases, 11 only primary, and 7 only secondary.

Role and responsibilities

When asked which description best reflected their organisation’s role in delivering ITT prior to the 2022 reforms, 21 respondents reported delivering some elements of ITT in partnership with other providers (for example, through School Direct). Nine respondents reported being an accredited ITT provider, and one indicated that their organisation was not involved in the ITT market prior to the reforms.

Following the reforms, 18 providers reported that their organisation’s role had not changed as a result of the reforms, while 13 reported a change in role. Among those whose roles changed, levels of satisfaction with their new role were mixed, as shown in Figure 10 below. Some providers who changed their role reported moving away from sole responsibility for delivery or from School Direct partnerships, instead taking on partner roles with larger accredited providers or universities. Others either ceased operating altogether or scaled back their ITT provision. The main reasons for these changes were linked to the reforms, including the removal of the School Direct fee-funded route, unsuccessful accreditation bids, and the introduction of the Quality Requirements. Other factors included ensuring long-term survival in a challenging market, insufficient trainee recruitment making independent delivery unviable, and opportunities to partner with larger or national providers to maintain quality, consistency, and capacity, organisational restructuring, and the need to meet new standards also influenced these changes.

Figure 10. How satisfied are you with your organisation's new role in the provision of ITT as a result of the reforms? (n = 13)

I am extremely satisfied I am somewhat satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied I am somewhat unsatisfied I am extremely unsatisfied 0 1 2 3 4 5 In addition, 16 respondents reported that their involvement in the design of the ITT programme changed as a result of the reforms, while 15 reported no change. Among those whose involvement changed, many described a reduction in their role, moving from designing and leading their own curriculum to delivering standardised programmes set by accredited partners, with limited scope to adapt materials. Others retained or gained responsibility for specific elements, such as ITAP training or the design of professional studies delivered in host schools. A few reported having more direct input, but overall, most experienced reduced influence over programme design. Levels of satisfaction with these new roles were mixed, as shown in Figure 11 below.

Figure 11. How satisfied are you with the way your involvement in the design of the ITT programme has changed since the implementation of the reforms? (n = 16)

Extremely satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neither satisfied nor unsatisfied Somewhat unsatisfied Extremely unsatisfied 0 1 2 3 4 5 When asked whether their satisfaction with the delivery of ITT changed as a result of the 2022 ITT reforms, responses were also mixed. Nine out of 31 training partners reported an increase in satisfaction, while 11 out of 31 reported that their satisfaction decreased or significantly decreased. When the sample is split by partners’ roles prior to the reforms, satisfaction is similar. Among those that were accredited providers before the reforms (9), 4 reported that their satisfaction had decreased or significantly decreased, while 3 reported an increase. Among those who held another role prior to the reforms (22), 7 reported a decrease in satisfaction, and 6 reported an increase (Figure 12).

Figure 12. How has your satisfaction with the delivery of ITT changed as a result of the 2022 ITT reforms and Quality Requirements? (n = 31)

Significantly increased Increased No change Decreased Significantly decreased Prefer not to say 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Training partners were also asked about their level of satisfaction with ITT-accredited providers. Most respondents (20) reported being extremely satisfied or satisfied, while 7 reported being somewhat dissatisfied or extremely dissatisfied, as seen in Figure 13 below.

Figure 13. How satisfied are you in your engagement with ITT-accredited providers? (n = 31)

Extremely satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neither satisfied nor unsatisfied Somewhat unsatisfied Extremely unsatisfied Prefer not to say 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Experiences of engaging with accredited providers were mixed. Many respondents described excellent, supportive, and genuinely collaborative relationships, with regular meetings, co-construction projects, and opportunities to shape the offer, input into curriculum design, and contribute to the design and delivery of ITAP and mentor training.

Some valued the dedicated curriculum teams of accredited providers and felt their roles had become more defined, while still maintaining identity and contextual delivery with sufficient flexibility. However, others reported less autonomy than previously, reduced capacity and connection, or having no say in changes imposed by accredited providers. Several noted that programmes were overcomplicated, with increased expectations on lead mentors, rising workloads, and funding not meeting expectations. Some partnerships were described as challenging, particularly with new national providers and reduced available funding, while others mentioned difficulties in the administration and challenges associated with delivery increasingly falling on schools. A minority (less than 10) characterised their experience as difficult, citing strained relationships, limited involvement in delivery, and a focus on meeting Ofsted criteria over course demands.

Regarding the possible activities that training partners can deliver or support through their partnerships, most reported collaborating with placement schools (27 training partners). In contrast, the element with the least involvement was the development of formative assessments, reported by only 7 training partners (Figure 14).

Figure 14. Which element(s) from the Quality Requirements are you involved in delivering or supporting as part of your partnership? Select all that apply (n = 31)

Collaboration with placement schools Identification and training of general mentors Intensive training and practice Identification and training of lead mentors Implementation of a quality assurance framework Training curriculum Collaboration with other training partners Development of formative assessments 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Effectiveness of reforms

Respondents representing training partners perceived that all elements of the ITT programme contributed to the quality of their training to varying degrees following the reforms, as seen in Figure 15 below. Collaboration with placement schools was seen as the most effective element, with 19 respondents rating it as very effective or effective. This

element also had relatively low levels of perceived ineffectiveness, with 2 respondents perceiving it as ineffective and none as very ineffective.

Similarly high levels of effectiveness were perceived for the ITAP element, with 15 participants rating it as very effective or effective. Closely following, the identification and training of general mentors was seen as effective or very effective by 14 respondents, while only 1 rated it as ineffective and none as very ineffective. Identification and training of lead mentors received slightly lower ratings, with 13 respondents rating it as very effective or effective, 1 as ineffective, and none as very ineffective.

Figure 15. How effective do you think this element of ITT has been, following the reforms, in supporting the quality of your training? (n = 31)

Intensive training and practice Training curriculum Collaboration with other training partners Collaboration with placement schools Identification and training of lead mentors Identification and training of general mentors Implementation of a quality assurance framework Development of formative assessments 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Very effective Effective Neither effective nor ineffective Ineffective Very ineffective Not applicable

Placement schools

A total of 131 responses were received from respondents representing placement schools. In terms of geographic distribution, 22% of schools were located in London, followed by the North West (18%), East Midlands (14%), South East (11%), East of England (10%), South West (9%), West Midlands (7%), Yorkshire and the Humber (5%), and North East (4%).

Regarding school type, half of the respondents (50%) were academies (state-funded mainstream), while 37% were local authority-maintained schools (state-funded mainstream). Smaller proportions were independent (private) schools (7%), state-funded special schools (2%), and free schools (2%, including mainstream, University Technical Colleges, and studio schools). A further 2% fell into other categories, such as single- academy trusts and a Catholic girls’ school.

In terms of phase offered, over half of the respondents (57%) provided placements in the primary phase only, 38% in the secondary phase only, and 5% offered placements in both phases.

Most respondents (63%) reported that the reforms have not changed the retention of ITT trainees as ECTs in their schools. Since 2024/25, 15% indicated that fewer ITT trainees have continued into ECT roles at their school compared with previous years, while 11% reported the opposite (Figure 16)[footnote 19].

Figure 16. We are aware that some ITT trainees secure employment as ECTs at one of their placement schools. Do you think that the new ITT reforms have impacted the retention of ITT trainees as ECTs in your school? (n = 131)

There has been no change 63% Since 2024/2025, we have seen fewer ITT trainees continuing as ECTs in our 15% school compared to previous years Since 2024/2025, we have seen an increase in ITT trainees continuing as 11% ECTs in our school compared to previous years Unsure/Prefer not to say 8% Since 2024/2025, we have seen an increase in ITT trainees continuing as ECTs in our MAT compared to previous 2% years Since 2024/2025, we have seen fewer ITT trainees continuing as ECTs in our 1% MAT compared to previous years 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Satisfaction with hosting trainees

As seen in Figure 17 below, half of the respondents reported that their satisfaction with hosting trainees had changed since the implementation of the reforms in the 2024/25 school year. 25% said their satisfaction increased or increased significantly, while a similar proportion (24%) reported that it decreased or decreased significantly. Some differences were observed by splitting the sample by school type. Respondents in local authority- maintained schools (n = 49) were more likely to report increased satisfaction, with 33% indicating that their satisfaction increased or increased significantly, compared with 20% of respondents in academy schools (n = 66).

Figure 17. How has your satisfaction with hosting trainees changed since the implementation of the reforms in the 2024/2025 school year? (n = 131)

Significantly increased 2% Increased 23% Neither increased nor decreased 50% Decreased 21% Significantly decreased 3% Prefer not to say 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Adaptions made due to the reforms

Participants representing placement schools reported mixed experiences regarding the ease of implementing different elements of the ITT reforms. The requirement that trainees spend a minimum amount of time in placement schools was perceived as the easiest element to implement. However, it is important to note that this requirement has been in place since before the reforms. A majority (55%) of respondents perceived that this requirement was either very easy or somewhat easy to implement, as seen in Figure 18 below.

In contrast, requirements related to mentor training were perceived as more challenging to implement. The requirement for lead mentors to receive at least 12 hours of annual refresher training was perceived as the most difficult, with 56% of respondents reporting that it was somewhat difficult or very difficult to implement. Only 18% indicated that this requirement was very easy or somewhat easy to implement.

Similarly, 43% of respondents reported that ensuring lead mentors receive sufficient high- quality training was somewhat difficult or very difficult to implement, compared to 28% who found it very easy or somewhat easy. Similar results were obtained for the requirement

that general mentors receive sufficient high-quality training, with 46% reporting some level of difficulty and 28% reporting that it was easy to implement[footnote 20].

When the analysis is segmented by school type, some differences emerge. Among academy schools (n = 66), the requirement perceived as easiest to implement was ensuring that trainees spend a minimum amount of time in placement schools, with 58% reporting it as easy or very easy. This was followed by ensuring that lead mentors receive sufficient high-quality training (33%). The most difficult requirement for academy schools was ensuring that lead mentors receive at least 12 hours of annual refresher training (47% reporting it as difficult or very difficult), followed by ensuring that general mentors receive sufficient high-quality training (39%).

Local authority-maintained schools (n = 49) reported a similar pattern in terms of what was easiest to implement, with 61% indicating that ensuring trainees spend a minimum amount of time in placement schools was easy or very easy, followed by ensuring that lead mentors receive sufficient high-quality training (29%). However, local authority-maintained schools were more likely to report difficulties with mentor-related requirements, particularly the requirement for lead mentors to receive at least 12 hours of annual refresher training (65% somewhat difficult or very difficult) and ensuring that lead mentors receive sufficient high-quality training (55% somewhat difficult or very difficult).

Figure 18. How easy do you feel it was to implement the following elements of the reforms? (n = 131)

Trainees should spend a minimum of 24 weeks (for postgraduates or 3-year course undergraduates) or 32 weeks (for 4-year course undergraduates) in placement schools General mentors should receive sufficient high-quality training Lead mentors should receive sufficient high-quality training Lead mentors should receive at least 12 hours of annual refresher training 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very easy Somewhat easy Neither easy nor difficult Somewhat difficult Very difficult NA- it does not apply to us

Effectiveness of the reforms

Placement schools reported generally positive perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the ITT reform elements in supporting the quality of training, as seen in Figure 19. The requirement that trainees spend a minimum amount of time in placement schools was perceived as the most effective compared to other elements. A majority of respondents (70%) perceived that this requirement was either very effective or effective, while only 4% perceived it as ineffective or very ineffective.

Mentor training requirements were also viewed positively overall, though with more mixed views. Nearly half of respondents (55%) perceived the requirement that general mentors receive sufficient high-quality training as very effective or effective, while 12% reported that it was ineffective or very ineffective. Similarly, 47% of respondents reported that ensuring lead mentors receive sufficient high-quality training was very effective or effective, compared to 15% who perceived it as ineffective or very ineffective.

Perceptions were slightly less positive for the requirement that lead mentors receive at least 12 hours of annual refresher training. While 38% of respondents reported that this element was very effective or effective, a similar proportion (33%) perceived it was neither effective nor ineffective. A further 18% perceived this requirement as ineffective or very ineffective.

When the analysis is segmented by school type, similar patterns emerge. Among academy schools (n = 66), the ITT element perceived as most effective in supporting the quality of training was ensuring that trainees spend a minimum amount of time in placement schools, with 74% reporting it as effective or very effective. This was followed by ensuring that general mentors receive sufficient high-quality training (53% effective or very effective). The element perceived as least effective was the requirement that lead mentors receive at least 12 hours of annual refresher training (17% reporting it as ineffective or very ineffective), followed by ensuring that general mentors receive sufficient high-quality training (15% ineffective or very ineffective).

Local authority-maintained schools (n = 49) perceived the most effective element was ensuring that trainees spend a minimum amount of time in placement schools, with 69% reporting it as effective or very effective, followed by ensuring that general mentors receive sufficient high-quality training (57% effective or very effective). The least effective element was the requirement that lead mentors receive at least 12 hours of annual refresher training (21% marking it ineffective or very ineffective), followed by ensuring that general mentors receive sufficient high-quality training (14% marking it ineffective or very ineffective).

Figure 19. How effective do you think this ITT element is in supporting the quality of your training (as a placement school)? (n = 131)

Trainees should spend a minimum of 24 weeks (for postgraduates or 3-year course undergraduates) or 32 weeks (for 4-year course undergraduates) in placement schools General mentors should receive sufficient high-quality training Lead mentors should receive sufficient high-quality training Lead mentors should receive at least 12 hours of annual refresher training 0% 50% 100% Very effective Effective Neither effective nor ineffective Ineffective Very ineffective Prefer not to say NA- it does not apply to us As shown in Figure 20, when asked how their financial capacity to host trainees has changed since the implementation of the ITT reforms, most respondents reported no change (48%). Meanwhile, 27% reported that it has decreased and 11% that it has significantly decreased. In contrast, a smaller share reported improvements, with 7% saying their capacity has increased and 3% indicating it has significantly increased. A further 3% preferred not to say.

Figure 20. How has your financial capacity to host trainees changed since the implementation of the ITT reforms? (n = 131)

It has significantly increased 3% It has increased 7% Neither increased nor decreased

It has decreased It has significantly decreased 11% Prefer not to say 3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% As shown in Figure 21, when asked how their willingness to host trainees has changed since the implementation of the new ITT reforms, most respondents reported no change (52%). Meanwhile, 26% reported that it has decreased and 7% that it has significantly decreased. In contrast, a smaller share reported increases, with 11% saying their willingness has increased and 2% indicating it has significantly increased. A further 2% preferred not to say.

Figure 21. How has your willingness to host trainees changed since the implementation of the new ITT reforms? (n = 131)

It has significantly increased 2% It has increased 11% Neither increased nor decreased 52% It has decreased 26% It has significantly decreased 7% Prefer not to say 2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% As shown in Figure 22, when asked how their satisfaction with their role in delivering placements for ITT has changed since the implementation of the ITT reforms, most respondents reported no change (54%). Meanwhile, 22% reported that it has decreased and 8% that it has significantly decreased. In contrast, a smaller share reported increases, with 11% saying their satisfaction has increased and 2% indicating it has significantly increased. A further 2% preferred not to say.

Figure 22. How has your satisfaction with your role in delivering placements for ITT changed since the implementation of the ITT reforms? (n = 131)

It has significantly increased 2% It has increased 11% Neither increased nor decreased 54% It has decreased 22% It has significantly decreased 8% Prefer not to say 2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Non-placement schools

Four non-placement schools responded to the survey. As seen in Figure 23, 3 of them had noticed some improvement in the teaching quality of recent ITT graduates compared to before the 2024 reforms, citing improvements in the subject knowledge, understanding of the curriculum, the use of researched strategies in the classroom, following a student- centred approach and inquiry-based learning. The fourth participant had not noticed either an improvement or a decline. In addition, 1 of them had offered ITT placements in the past.

Non-placement schools from the survey perceived some improvements in trainees’ readiness to teach following the 2024 reforms, with examples provided for improvements in planning, scaffolding, and management. However, views were mixed, based on a very small number of responses, and collected during the first year of post-reform recruitment. Planning, preparation and delivery of lessons were seen as the strongest areas of improvement, with all 4 respondents reporting either significant or some improvement in both aspects. Perceptions were also generally positive for differentiation and supporting

SEND, with 3 respondents noting improvement (including 2 reporting significant improvement), while 1 reported no change.

Figure 23. Have you noticed any changes in the following aspects of trainees’ readiness to teach compared to before the 2024 reforms? (n = 4)

Delivery of lessons Differentiation and supporting SEND Planning and preparation Classroom management Behaviour management 0 1 2 3 4 Significant improvement Some improvement Neither improvement nor decline Some decline Significant decline Prefer not to say

Findings from follow-up interviews with current and non- continuing providers, training partners, placement schools, trainees, and MAT leads

Summary of key findings

• A total of 39 interviews were conducted: 13 with accredited providers (5 SCITTs

and 8 HEIs), 2 with training partners, 3 with placement schools, 16 with trainees, 2 with non-continuing providers, and 3 with MAT leads.

• Overall implementation experience

o Experiences of implementation varied widely across providers. Some built on strong existing systems and adapted with limited changes. Others found the reforms demanding, especially given compressed timelines and evolving guidance.

o Most providers reported an increase in workload, especially in staff time, across curriculum redevelopment, ITAP design and delivery, mentor training, quality assurance, and administration.

o Grants were generally welcomed and helped with staffing and releasing mentors from other duties, but many providers found funding limited, short- term, and administratively burdensome, restricting longer-term planning.

• Curriculum and practice

o For many providers, only modest changes were needed because their courses already aligned with the framework.

o Many saw benefits as reforms accelerated changes already underway and led to clearer course structures, with a stronger emphasis on adaptive teaching and SEND.

o A small number of participants, all from HEIs, raised concerns about a compliance-driven approach, reduced flexibility, and a prescribed evidence base that limited critical engagement with emerging research. Some also questioned the relevance for early years and primary contexts and noted that valued elements of previous curricula were sometimes dropped to make space for ITTECF requirements.

o A small number of participants also raised potential knock-on effects, including trainee workload and anxiety, and added strain for smaller or remote schools.

• ITAP

o ITAP was generally viewed positively as a mechanism to focus on key teaching skills and pedagogy. Some providers reported good trainee feedback and valued the freedom to design their own approach.

o Many providers built on existing initiatives and similar models.

o Challenges were consistent across interviews and included that ITAP was resource-intensive to design and deliver, especially while guidance was still developing. Scheduling and coordination with schools were also difficult, particularly around trainee release time and balancing ITAP requirements with placement timetables, without overloading trainees.

• Mentoring

o Most participants saw mentoring requirements as a beneficial change, describing mentoring as more central to ITT and more clearly valued under the reforms.

o Providers adopted a range of approaches to mentor training (for example, virtual learning environments, asynchronous modules, in-person sessions), often building on existing mentor development provision.

o Strong relationships with schools and flexible training approaches supported implementation.

o The main challenge for the implementation of the mentoring requirements was the lack of school capacity. Securing school engagement and releasing staff for mentor training was difficult, with some providers reporting reduced placement availability. Schools working with multiple providers faced additional pressures.

• Assessment

o Most providers made only minor changes to their assessment systems.

o A smaller number reported ongoing challenges, including the difficulty of changing mentors’ habits around assessments and uncertainty about how the Teachers’ Standards should be featured in formative assessments to grade progress.

• Quality assurance

o Many providers already had strong systems in place. Changes mainly involved formalising processes and increasing documentation.

o Challenges centred on increased paperwork and difficulties using shared tracking systems across large partnerships.

• Partnerships

o Motivations to develop partnerships ranged from strategic growth and sustainability to a sense of sector responsibility (for example, taking on provision after other providers lost accreditation).

o Training partners often described partnership decisions as shaped by financial sustainability and capacity, while seeking to retain local responsiveness and influence over delivery.

o Accredited providers and training partners discussed the benefits of developing partnerships, including shared expertise, reduced insularity, and access to resources and networks.

o Challenges included managing QA across larger partnerships.

• Impact of the reforms: Trainee satisfaction

o Most trainees reported being broadly satisfied with the ITT programme. They highlighted the structured, research-informed curricula, clear progression in responsibility, and substantial school-based practice as the most beneficial elements.

o Mentoring was the strongest determinant of satisfaction as supportive mentors built confidence, while weaker mentoring contributed toward uneven experiences across placements.

o ITAP was generally valued for skill development, though some found it too demanding alongside wider programme demands.

• Providers and MATs reported mixed views, often arguing that satisfaction depends

more on mentoring and placement quality than on programme design, while acknowledging the risks of workload and intensity.

• Impact of the reforms: Teacher satisfaction and retention

o Participants reported mixed impacts, with many observing no clear change overall, while some described increased confidence and lower dropout rates.

o Enablers included a clearer curriculum and improved mentoring that supported more seamless transitions into teaching roles.

o The most common concern was repetition between ITT and the Early Career Framework, with recognition that some efforts are already underway.

• Impact of the reforms: Teaching quality and readiness

o Some stakeholders reported improvements in the teaching quality and readiness to teach by new ECTs linked to clearer structures and greater consistency, while others saw little change.

o Practice time and mentoring were repeatedly identified as central to readiness, with ITAP seen as helpful for focused skill development.

o Concerns included reduced classroom experience for some trainees, trade- offs between technical competence and deeper understanding, and increased bureaucracy diverting time from trainee support.

o SEND readiness was widely discussed by trainees, but confidence was most commonly linked to placement context and mentor support rather than taught content. Views were divided among the rest of the stakeholders, with some reporting improvements and others seeing little difference.

• School involvement and placement capacity

o Over half of providers reported reduced placement capacity, attributing this mainly to increased mentoring and training expectations and wider pressures on school staffing and budgets.

o Schools working with multiple providers faced additional complexity due to differing mentor training requirements and programme expectations.

o Accredited providers described a clear tension in the way that higher expectations may improve quality and discourage superficial engagement, but in many areas, the practical effect was fewer placements.

• Unintended consequences

o Participants generally supported the aims of the Quality Requirements but described the implementation and reaccreditation process as stressful and disruptive, with lasting effects on morale.

o Many providers, mostly HEIs, reported reduced collaboration and increased competition across the sector, along with concerns about consolidation, reduced provider diversity, and loss of distinctive models.

o Some providers, although mainly HEIs, raised concerns about greater standardisation, reduced flexibility, and overlap between ITT and ECF content, with a sense that some programmes were shaped more by compliance and inspection pressures than educational priorities.

Implementation of reforms

The implementation of the ITT reforms was explored through discussions with representatives from accredited providers, training partners, placement schools, and MAT leads. Findings in this section are mainly driven by ITT provider perspectives, showing their larger representation in the sample. Views from training partners, placement schools, and MATs are reported using explicit counts and are included to corroborate, nuance, or contextualise provider-led themes rather than to indicate prevalence within those groups. This section analyses approaches to meeting the Quality Requirements, identifies key enablers of implementation, and outlines the main challenges experienced.

A small number of accredited providers reported that, while the reforms required considerable effort, they were able to build on strong pre-existing foundations. These included established quality assurance processes, supportive organisational leadership, sufficient resourcing (particularly time and funding), and a practice of continuous improvement. Providers with mature systems and a longstanding dedication to high-quality initial teacher training felt better able to adapt to the new requirements.

In contrast, some accredited providers emphasised the scale and intensity of change required. These providers stressed the significant time and resource investment needed to implement the reforms fully, particularly when working across complex partnership arrangements. Challenges included navigating evolving guidance, managing increased expectations across partnerships, and balancing quality improvement with capacity constraints. The tight implementation timeline was widely perceived as challenging, requiring major changes to be delivered alongside ongoing programme delivery. A few providers also noted that early communication about the reforms lacked clarity and that subsequent changes to guidance increased uncertainty during implementation.

Differences in the perspectives across providers were evident in the interviews. Participants representing HEIs tended to focus more strongly on conceptual aspects of the reforms, including the rationale for curriculum change, the evidence base underpinning the ITTECF, and the pedagogical principles shaping programme design. Interviewees based in SCITTs, by contrast, focused more heavily on the practicalities of implementation, such as operational delivery, partnership coordination, and meeting specific requirements.

Resources needed for implementation

Most ITT providers and 1 training partner (out of the 2 interviewed) reported that the reforms required substantial additional resourcing, particularly staff time, with increased

workload across curriculum redevelopment, ITAP design and delivery, mentor training, quality assurance, and associated administrative processes. Providers described reallocating resources from other areas to prioritise implementation, including commissioning external experts, redirecting budgets toward curriculum compliance, and increasing investment in monitoring and mentoring activity, often within compressed timelines. Several ITT providers and both training partners reported creating or adapting roles, most focused on lead mentoring, partnership coordination, subject expertise, or quality assurance, with clear variation by provider type: most SCITTs created new roles, while only 1 HEI did so, and others absorbed responsibilities into existing structures. Some providers and 1 training partner explicitly described absorbing new requirements into existing roles through restructuring or role redefinition, which limited direct staffing costs but intensified workload and role complexity. One training partner reported a reduction in workload in specific areas, where administrative tasks were transferred to the accredited partner under a partnership arrangement. Overall, providers described the reforms as requiring significant resource investment, with organisational context shaping whether capacity was built through new roles or absorbed internally, and with increased workload pressures reported across all models.

“We've invested a lot more now in our lead mentors and we have grown. So, we needed more people sort of doing that role. But we do really like the changes to that role and just how these sorts of lead mentors are now much more heavily involved in all aspects of the programme. So, we've allocated a lot more sort of time and funding to those members of staff.” (Accredited provider, SCITT, London)

Many ITT providers, 1 training partner, 2 MATs, and all placement schools reported receiving grants, primarily to support staffing, mentor training, and curriculum or resource development, including remuneration for mentor time. Grants were generally viewed as helpful in offsetting staff time and enabling implementation activity, but over half of ITT providers and 1 training partner noted that funding was limited in scope, administratively burdensome, and insufficient to cover full implementation costs, with timing and short-term funding horizons constraining planning. Placement schools and MATs valued grants for releasing staff for training and sustaining mentoring quality, though access was not always direct. A small number of ITT providers reported not receiving grants due to eligibility or administrative considerations. Overall, grants were seen as a partial support that alleviated specific pressures without offsetting the wider resource demands of the reforms.

Curriculum and practice

Curriculum and practice requirements were discussed by most accredited providers and by 1 training partner. Most accredited providers described restructuring or refining their course materials to demonstrate alignment with the ITTECF. The training partner described its existing curriculum and practice approaches as already in line with the

requirements and viewed the reforms as strengthening a research-informed, current, and relevant provision.

Enablers for the implementation of the curriculum and practice requirements Over half of the 10 participants who discussed this topic reflected implementing the changes to curriculum and practice as easy as their courses already met most of the requirements. In many cases, only small changes were needed, like updating documents or rearranging topics.

Many providers saw benefits from this restructuring work. Some said the reforms sped up curriculum changes they were already planning and encouraged them to think more about how their courses were organised and taught, resulting in clearer course structures. Others said there was now a greater focus on adaptive teaching and SEND. One of the providers specified how they looked into what the ITTECF outlined, including the evidence behind it, and compared it against what they were already doing in order to meet the SEND requirements.

“SEND aspects that are in the ITTECF framework around how what trainees should learn and how they should learn it and what they should be able to do - much of that existed across certainly both the institutions I worked at provision and was very well received by inspections and by more importantly, by trainees and schools and the pupils that they serve.” (Accredited provider, HEI, London)

One provider took more control over curriculum delivery to keep things consistent across all their partner schools. This made sure all trainees had the same experience and that the curriculum was fully covered. However, it also meant that individual partnerships had less freedom to adapt the programme to their local needs or unique ways of working.

Practice hours were discussed less frequently. Accredited providers who addressed this requirement reported that substantial time in school has always been a priority, meaning the formalisation of practice hours largely reflected existing approaches. Two placement schools described positive impacts of the gradual increase in teaching commitment, particularly in preparing trainees for ECT roles.

Challenges for the implementation of curriculum and practice requirements Several accredited providers emphasised that, even where substantive changes were limited, the work required to evidence alignment was considerable. Reviewing curricula in detail, re-sequencing content across phases, and rewriting documentation to meet the specified requirements were described as time-intensive processes. For these providers, curriculum redesign was one of the most demanding aspects of implementation because of the need to demonstrate comprehensive coverage and coherence.

One of the schools also commented on the potential increased anxiety among trainees as the workload intensified when fulfilling the practice requirements. A small number of providers also reported increased demands on schools, particularly for smaller or more remote schools. Additional expectations around placement duration and curriculum delivery were perceived as potentially discouraging school participation.

Furthermore, a small number of accredited providers (all HEIs) raised challenges related to the foundational elements of the curriculum and practice requirements. They expressed concern that the ITTECF encouraged a compliance-oriented approach, prioritising demonstrable coverage over professional judgement and curriculum quality. One provider argued that the emphasis on evidencing alignment risked reducing curriculum development to a checklist exercise, consuming time that could otherwise be spent on deeper pedagogical work. Concerns were also raised about the rigidity of the Framework. They questioned the appropriateness of a single prescribed curriculum across diverse contexts, particularly for large providers operating across several diverse school settings. Others expressed unease about the fixed nature of the prescribed evidence base, suggesting it limited opportunities for critical engagement with emerging research.

Particular concerns were raised about relevance for primary and early years contexts. One provider felt that elements of the prescribed literature were drawn predominantly from secondary settings and were not always appropriate for early years or primary phases. This was seen as particularly challenging for undergraduate programmes, where degree- level expectations around critical inquiry could sit in tension with a tightly prescribed curriculum. Another provider also expressed that one of the main negative aspects of the new curriculum is that they had to lose highly valued elements from their past curriculum to fit the new ITTECF.

ITAP

Although ITAP sits within the curriculum and practice Quality Requirement, it is addressed separately due to its central role in the reforms and the scale of change required. ITAP implementation was discussed by all accredited providers, both training partners, 2 placement schools, and 1 MAT.

In alignment with the survey findings, most providers reflected positively on ITAP, describing it as an effective approach for sharpening core teaching skills and strengthening their pedagogical practice. Even though ITAP took a lot of resources to design and implement, some providers liked having the freedom to create their own approach and received positive feedback from trainees.

Enablers for the implementation of ITAP Many accredited providers built on existing initiatives or practices with similar aims. Those with prior experience of intensive or focused training models found it easier to adapt to the new requirements and described ITAP as adding structure and coherence to existing work. Both training partners described adapting existing intensive or programmatic training approaches to meet ITAP requirements, drawing on established practices rather than developing provision entirely from scratch. Key enablers for implementation included collaboration with other organisations within the sector to share learnings and good practices.

Several providers described ITAP as an evolving component of their programmes. They described ongoing refinement based on trainee feedback, enabling them to adjust timing and sequencing to better align with placement experiences.

Challenges for the implementation of ITAP Despite general positivity, many accredited providers identified major challenges associated with ITAP. The most frequently cited issue was the resource intensity of design and delivery. As a new requirement, ITAP demanded substantial time and expertise, particularly during early implementation when guidance was still evolving. For some HEI providers, this created tensions with validated programme structures, requiring revalidation when approaches changed.

Coordinating ITAP within existing programme schedules was also challenging. Providers needed to align intensive training with placement timetables and other programme components without creating excessive pressure on trainees. Several noted concerns about staff workload and trainee wellbeing due to the concentrated nature of ITAP delivery. Coordination with schools presented further challenges. Providers reported difficulties negotiating trainee release time, particularly for salaried routes or placements with high teaching commitments. Balancing expectations of schools with ITAP requirements was an ongoing concern.

Another challenge was guaranteeing consistency across delivery contexts, particularly for providers operating across multiple sites or partnerships. Placement schools reiterated these concerns, particularly those working with multiple providers, where differing ITAP schedules and content created logistical difficulties.

“The biggest barrier is that we by necessity deal with so many different providers and their paperwork's subtly different and their timings all certainly different. And the ITAPs are an utter nightmare […] this term there has been an ITAP basically every single week with one provider or another.” (Placement school, South East England)

Mentoring requirements

Mentoring requirements, including mentor training and mentoring activities, were discussed by nearly all accredited providers, 1 training partner, 5 placement schools, and all 3 MATs. Accredited providers described a range of implementation approaches for mentor training, often building on existing mentor development provision. They also

described seeking innovative approaches to make these training requirements work, which included virtual learning environments, asynchronous modules[footnote 21], in-person training, and streamlined sessions.

Many providers emphasised that the reforms elevated the status and the importance of mentoring, regarding it as a central component of ITT. One training partner similarly reported that its longstanding emphasis on mentoring made adaptation to the new requirements relatively straightforward.

Enablers for the implementation of mentoring requirements Strong relationships with schools were the most commonly cited facilitator among accredited providers, particularly among SCITTs. They discussed how having an established collaboration and understanding enabled effective communication and joint problem-solving.

Some providers also highlighted the importance of flexibility in training design, allowing mentor development to be adapted to prior experience. Placement schools that discussed enablers identified clear guidance from providers and, in some cases, strong existing mentoring cultures. Grant funding was viewed as helpful in covering the costs of releasing teachers for mentoring training activities.

All 3 MATs identified enablers linked to their organisational structure, including centralised coordination of mentor training, shared expertise across schools, and established professional development infrastructures.

“So, you would say generally it's a bit easier to be a trust implementing these Quality Requirements and the reforms rather than a single school because I think you've got enough expertise across it.” (MAT Lead)

Challenges in the implementation of mentoring requirements Although participants generally viewed the recognition of mentor training and the mentoring role as positive, they also highlighted challenges with implementation due to capacity constraints. The main challenge identified by accredited providers was securing sufficient school capacity and engagement for mentor training. Many reported that schools struggled to release staff for training, sometimes reducing placement availability as a result.

“From what we saw last year with the increased engagement from mentors because of the funding, it's shown us that how enthusiastic mentors are, how much they enjoy being part of the teacher training process. But also, how much additional workloads that can mean for some mentors. And yeah, really the difference that a bit of funding can do in order to release teachers to be able to do some of that work and training.” (Accredited provider, HEI, Yorkshire and the Humber).

Coordinating training schedules and monitoring high numbers of mentors was also cited as a key barrier. Views on removing the 20-hour training requirement were mixed. Some providers reported that the removal increased the engagement and uptake with schools, while others argued that the timing of the removal damaged their relationship with schools and their efforts to engage with them. These providers explained that, after the 20- hour requirement was removed, some schools believed mentor training was no longer needed and stopped participating. Others felt that any remaining push for training came from the providers themselves, rather than being a formal requirement.

Some providers described tensions between compliance requirements from the mentoring activities and the quality of mentoring. Emphasis on documenting training was sometimes seen as detracting from time spent building effective mentoring practice.

All 3 placement schools discussed challenges related to the time commitment required for mentoring and the burden created by working with multiple providers, each requiring separate training. All 3 MATs reported challenges in coordinating mentoring across schools with varying contexts and capacities.

Assessment

In relation to the assessment requirement, many accredited providers made a few changes to their assessment systems due to existing practices already meeting the requirements. Most changes involved updating documents and language, not major system changes. Some accredited providers mentioned that the biggest difference was making formative assessment for placements more formal. Providers welcomed the stronger focus on developmental feedback, too. One provider also highlighted the importance of assessing against the curriculum, while another one praised the ability to provide more targeted guidance for mentors on areas of learning to focus on with trainees.

A few providers reported challenges. They found it hard to encourage mentors, especially senior teachers, to stop using grades rather than the discussion of progress as part of the changes to their assessment system. There was also ongoing confusion about the role of the Teachers’ Standards in formative assessment after the reforms.

Quality Assurance

Most accredited providers and 1 training partner discussed quality assurance. Many said their current systems were already strong and needed few changes. Similarly, the training partner said its quality assurance systems already matched the new requirements and only needed small changes. Some providers did note they had formalised their monitoring processes, which included collecting feedback and keeping records. Several stressed that quality assurance should help development, not just meet rules.

A few providers said they faced challenges, especially with more paperwork and monitoring. Some HEIs found it hard to get their institutions to understand the specific quality assurance pressures of ITT. Others had trouble using common tracking systems in large partnerships.

Partnership building

Another key aspect of the reforms related to the development of partnerships between ITT providers and training partners. Interviews covered key themes such as experiences of partnership formation, maintenance, and withdrawal following the ITT reforms involving accredited ITT providers, training partners, and 2 non-continuing providers (both HEIs), who discussed attempts to secure partnerships after losing accreditation. Differences were evident between HEIs and SCITTs. Most SCITTs (4 of 5) reported developing new partnerships, whereas only a minority of HEIs (2 of 8) made such changes. Both training partners interviewed had previously been ITT providers themselves and became partners following reaccreditation decisions.

Patterns in partnership development among accredited providers Partnership development varied considerably across accredited ITT providers. Over half of providers formed new partnerships following the reforms, while the rest reported no new partnerships. A smaller group described attempts to establish new partnerships that were ultimately unsuccessful. Several providers explicitly noted that they continued working with the same partners as before the reforms, though in some cases the nature of those relationships had shifted.

Development of new partnerships Among accredited providers that developed new partnerships, motivations varied. Some described how they thought DfE was aiming for bigger, more consolidated providers and decided to build partnerships to remain competitive for accreditation. One SCITT deliberately sought to grow in size to strengthen expertise and sustainability.

HEIs described partnership development as motivated by a sense of sector responsibility rather than financial gain, including taking on providers that had lost

accreditation to enable continuity of provision. In these cases, providers described the partnership development process as driven by their values and commitment to the sector.

“We've always worked with them, just not to this degree. They've been our competition, but we've always been friends. We've always been in the same schools. So, for us it was a complete no brainer. We cannot let them

• stop being in the market [ ] We wouldn't have been able to absorb what

they were doing previously, there's just no way we could cover it. So, for us, that was really an easy sort of moral decision.” (Accredited provider, HEI, Yorkshire and the Humber)

SCITTs that developed partnerships described a range of motivations, including changing university partners for PGCE delivery, enabling previously accredited providers to continue operating, and creating integrated models in which different partners delivered distinct elements of the programme.

Both training partners interviewed had been accredited providers prior to the reforms and made strategic decisions to become partners rather than continue independently. Financial sustainability and capacity were key considerations, alongside alignment of values and educational vision with the accredited providers. One training partner initially secured reaccreditation but later opted for partnership due to declining recruitment. They expressed how they sought a partner that would preserve local responsiveness and allow them to retain professional autonomy. The other, a small provider, determined that the partnership offered access to curriculum design capacity and resources that would have been challenging to sustain independently.

A small number of accredited providers and 1 training partner identified factors that facilitated partnership development, including existing professional relationships, geographic proximity, and clear partnership agreements that set out roles and responsibilities. Some providers also noted that the partnership grant, while insufficient to cover full costs, enabled key appointments that supported implementation.

Accredited providers who entered partnerships identified benefits including reduced insularity, shared expertise, and greater openness in curriculum and practice development. Training partners similarly highlighted access to national infrastructure, resource development, and professional networks, while valuing the ability to retain influence over local delivery.

Providers that did not develop new partnerships Over half of accredited providers reported not developing new partnerships. These providers typically cited strong existing regional positions, stable recruitment, or satisfaction with established delivery models. Some SCITTs described themselves as the provider of choice in their area and felt no need to partner in order to remain viable.

Among HEIs, reasons for not developing partnerships included a desire to avoid additional institutional risk or workload, particularly during periods of inspection or reaccreditation uncertainty. Others retained direct relationships with placement schools and saw no strategic advantage in altering their model.

Several providers explicitly reported maintaining their existing partnership arrangements. For some, this represented continuity in School Direct partnerships, which were simply renamed delivery or training partners under the new system. One provider described a shift in the nature of their partnerships even while working with the same partners. They explained that after the reforms, they took complete control of curriculum delivery to maintain consistency and alignment with the new Quality Requirements, shifting the balance of responsibility and control completely, with delivery previously under their partners' purview.

A small number of accredited providers described attempts to form new partnerships that did not succeed. In one case, a partnership was established but later collapsed due to recruitment challenges, while in another, exploratory discussions did not progress due to concerns about geography, operational fit, and responsibility for quality assurance.

Challenges of partnership development Accredited providers who developed partnerships described substantial challenges, including managing quality assurance across enlarged and diverse partnerships, negotiating institutional approval processes, and coping with compressed timelines. One participant from an accredited provider described significant emotional toll and workload impacts, noting that partnership development was personally and professionally exhausting.

Universities in particular highlighted the difficulty of navigating internal governance processes while responding rapidly to external reform pressures. Partnership development negotiations were described as opaque and competitive, with limited shared intelligence across the sector.

Experiences of non-continuing providers Two non-continuing providers (both HEIs) described their attempts to secure partnerships after losing accreditation. Both providers actively pursued partnerships to continue delivering ITT, but encountered significant barriers. Financial viability was a major constraint, and the proposed fee arrangements made continuation unsustainable. Institutional politics further limited options, including a pre-existing reluctance to partner with neighbouring universities.

One non-continuing provider experienced the collapse of a partnership at a very late stage, following their own withdrawal due to the challenges with financial agreements, a

development described as deeply distressing for staff already affected by accreditation loss.

“The difficulty is, that of course, as the lead partner, they're taking on the risk of having us, they take on the Ofsted risk, all of those kind of things and inevitably in one of those dynamics they then want to take a cut of the student fees to kind of, you know, we basically would have to pay to be in partnership. And no matter how you sliced it, because ITT is so expensive to do, you know they were talking about taking a 10 to 15% cut and we worked out, even if it was a 6% cut, it would not be viable for us to continue.” (Non-continuing provider)

Both providers emphasised the severe impact on staff wellbeing, professional identity, and morale. Loss of autonomy emerged as a central concern; staff reported frustration at having to adopt externally designed curricula and frameworks, with limited scope for adaptation, and described lasting effects on wellbeing and professional relationships.

Perceived impact of reforms

Trainee satisfaction

Trainee satisfaction was explored through discussions with trainees (n = 16), ITT providers (n = 11), training partners (n = 2), and MATs (n = 3). Due to trainees having been trained entirely within the reformed system, their feedback focused solely on their current experiences rather than comparing them to previous approaches.

Trainee perspectives In alignment with the survey findings, most trainees said they were generally satisfied with their training, highlighting the benefits of a structured, research-informed curriculum, explicit steps in teaching responsibilities, and plenty of school-based practice. In contrast with the survey findings, which showed low satisfaction with ITAP among trainees (59%), almost all interviewed trainees saw ITAP as a key part of their development, valuing its focus on teaching skills, though some found it intense when combined with other programme demands. As in the survey, mentoring stood out as the biggest factor shaping satisfaction, with many trainees stressing that the quality and consistency of their mentors made a real difference. Supportive mentoring boosted their confidence and commitment to teaching, while less effective mentoring led to mixed experiences across placements.

“The mentoring was really, really helpful, because having that, those one- to-one meetings and the support was very helpful and I think I learned most of the important practical aspects from them rather than on my training.” (Trainee, London, SDS, Secondary, Physics)

“I think the idea [of mentors] is great and what a mentor should be seems to be clear, but I'm not sure whether it's the schools not understanding when they're making [people] mentors, that they actually understand how much time and work is involved in the process. So it results in a situation where the trainee is not given what they should be given simply because

• there is the mentor doesn't have the time to give it [ ] Some [classmates]

had a really negative experience and they finished the course, but they chose not to go into teaching.” (Trainee, South East, Postgraduate, fee funded, Secondary, Geography)

Most trainees appreciated being able to gradually take on more classroom responsibilities, which helped them put theory into practice and build their teaching skills over time. Although survey findings reflected a slightly more negative picture around the perceived usefulness of assessments, many interviewees said formative assessments and feedback helped them see their progress without adding too much pressure. Some trainees suggested a few improvements to the system, such as offering paid training to relieve financial stress, part-time routes for more flexibility, and better coordination across placements to create fairer experiences for everyone.

Most trainees reflected that their satisfaction with training influenced whether they wanted to keep teaching. Positive experiences, especially supportive placements and good mentoring, increased their commitment to the profession, while difficult placements or a lack of support sometimes made them question their confidence and motivation.

Provider, training partner, and MAT perspectives ITT providers had mixed views on trainee satisfaction. Some felt there had been no change to trainee satisfaction, pointing out that trainees can only comment on what they have experienced, while 2 providers thought satisfaction had increased. A couple of providers were concerned that the programme’s added intensity and workload could affect trainee wellbeing. Both training partners felt satisfaction was steady, saying trainees trusted them to deliver the programme and that job outcomes were still positive. Among MATs, 1 noted that trainee feedback revealed trainees sometimes felt overwhelmed, while another believed that satisfaction depended more on trainee engagement and provider quality than on the reforms themselves.

Several providers and 1 MAT pointed to ITAP and mentoring as the main reasons for positive trainee experiences. Feedback showed that ITAP’s focus on skill development was valued, though some providers admitted its intensity could be tough for trainees. Most providers agreed that better mentoring, supported by additional resources, was reassuring and likely to improve the trainee experience.

“I think that has really increased training satisfaction, how that role of mentor, who was that sort of pastoral support and checked on progress progressing up to lead mentor, who's a real expert in the programme now and is able to support with mentor training and delivering training, that has helped trainee satisfaction, I would say.” (Accredited provider, SCITT, London)

Several providers said that a clear curriculum and structured progression helped trainees learn, but some warned that not enough flexibility or inconsistent delivery could make the programme less effective. A few providers raised concerns about increased workload and tighter schedules, noting these could lead to burnout for trainees, mentors, and tutors. Overall, providers felt that trainee satisfaction depended more on the quality and consistency of mentoring and placements than on the programme’s design.

Teacher satisfaction

Teacher satisfaction, referring to ECTs' contentment with their teaching roles after completing ITT, was explored with ITT providers (n = 7), 1 training partner (n = 1), and all 3 MATs (n = 3). This section focuses on how stakeholders perceived the impact of the reforms on ECT satisfaction in their early teaching roles.

Stakeholders reported mixed views on the impact of the reforms. Among ITT providers, most noted no observable change in teacher satisfaction, reporting that retention and overall contentment had remained consistent post-reform. Two providers observed positive changes, highlighting increased ECT confidence and reduced dropout rates. The training partner expressed uncertainty, reflecting the difficulty of determining the clear impact of reform.

Regarding retention, 2 ITT providers and 1 training partner discussed links between teacher satisfaction and staying in the profession. Contrary to the survey findings, which stated no changes in retention, 1 provider reported that overall dropout rates had decreased following the reforms, though some ECTs continued to leave due to misunderstandings about professional expectations. The training partner noted that it was difficult to determine clear changes in retention.

Enabling factors for teacher satisfaction Several elements of the reforms were reported to enhance teacher satisfaction. A clearer curriculum, identified by 2 ITT providers, both training partners, and all 3 MAT leads, helped ECTs better understand teaching and recognise their strengths and areas for development. Improved mentoring, highlighted by an ITT provider and 1 MAT, offered clear guidance and support for training. One provider noted that ECTs felt more confident following the reforms, contributing to smoother transitions and lower dropout rates. One of the interviewed MAT leaders also reported improved satisfaction due to a clearer curriculum, while another one highlighted that teacher satisfaction was more associated with the quality of training and school placements than with the reforms themselves.

Challenges to teacher satisfaction Challenges were also highlighted, for example, the repetition in the curriculum content between ITT and the ECT years was raised by 2 ITT providers, both training partners, and all 3 MAT leads, as potentially reducing satisfaction. Training partners noted steps were being taken to mitigate repetition, including aligning the curricula and framing repeated content as opportunities to deepen knowledge rather than simply repeat it. One MAT leader expressed concern that the balance between content and practical classroom experience had shifted too far toward content, leaving insufficient hands-on practice.

Teaching quality and readiness

Teaching quality and readiness were explored with ITT providers (n = 11), 1 training partner, all 3 MATs (n = 3), and trainees (n = 16). This theme examined whether the reforms had affected trainees’ readiness to manage classrooms independently as they prepare to become ECTs and the overall quality of teaching among newly qualified teachers.

Perspectives of ITT providers, training partners, and MATs Views among providers and MATs were mixed; some reported improvements in readiness and teaching quality, others saw little change, and a few raised concerns.

Among ITT providers, some reported improvements, often linked to greater consistency and clearer structures within programmes.

“I think there has been an increase [in ECT readiness] because we've been forced in a good way, we always want to improve, but it has sort of really like I say, made us make sure everything's consistent, everything's tightened up and nothing's falling through the gap.” (Accredited provider, SCITT, London)

One provider felt the reforms had prompted useful reflection and helped address inconsistencies, while another pointed to improvements in specific areas, such as phonics, linked to ITAP. Others reported little or no change, suggesting their trainees had always been well prepared or that newly qualified teachers were performing much as they had before the reforms.

MAT perspectives were similarly divided. One MAT reported that clearer curricula and improved mentoring had led to better prepared ECTs. Another felt the reforms had reduced classroom experience, leaving some ECTs to struggle with the demands of a full teaching load. The third MAT identified phase-specific gaps, suggesting that some

secondary ECTs lacked depth in subject knowledge, while some primary ECTs struggled to apply knowledge effectively in diverse classrooms.

Enablers of teaching quality and readiness

Several factors were identified as contributing positively to readiness. Some providers highlighted the clearer, more structured curriculum as a key improvement, helping trainees understand expectations and core teaching approaches. The training partner also emphasised improved alignment across the curriculum.

Practice time in schools was widely seen as important. Some providers noted that more intensive placement periods helped trainees build confidence and feel ready for the classroom, particularly when combined with strong mentoring.

Echoing the survey findings around the impact of ITAP on teaching quality, some providers felt it allowed trainees to focus more intensively on key elements of practice, such as behaviour or phonics, and saw this as a positive development. Mentoring was also described as central to readiness.

Some providers noted that the reforms appeared to have increased consistency across the sector. However, this was not universally accepted. One provider suggested that, despite more consistent structures, schools still perceived differences in quality between providers.

Challenges impacting teaching quality and readiness

Alongside these positive elements, several concerns were raised. The most significant aspect was the classroom experience. One MAT argued that some trainees now had fewer opportunities to teach full timetables, particularly when ITAP or other requirements reduced classroom time[footnote 22]. As a result, some ECTs were reported to struggle more with the pace and volume of teaching in their first year.

Other stakeholders highlighted trade-offs between breadth and depth. One provider felt trainees were becoming more technically competent but sometimes lacked a deeper theoretical understanding. Similarly, 1 MAT reported gaps in subject knowledge for some secondary ECTs and in pedagogical application for some primary ECTs.

One provider also raised concerns about an apparent trend towards uniformity that led to losing nuances and flexibility across programmes.

“There seems to be a trend towards uniformity rather than consistency. And what I mean by that is, yes, we need to be working in very similar ways, but there are nuances and some of those nuances were being lost to the point where it felt like everyone's being asked to do exactly the same thing.” (Accredited provider, HEI, London)

There were also concerns about increased bureaucracy and compliance requirements raised by 1 provider. They noted that additional tracking and reporting demands as part of the quality assurance processes took time and attention away from supporting trainees directly.

Trainees’ perspectives on readiness Most trainees discussed their readiness for their first year of teaching, although they could not compare this to earlier systems. Their responses, therefore, reflected how prepared they felt, rather than whether the reforms had improved readiness.

Factors impacting ECT readiness

Many trainees described the structured curriculum as providing a useful foundation, particularly when it was clearly organised and linked to classroom practice. Several reported that focused practice periods and strong mentoring support helped them feel more confident entering the classroom.

Classroom experience was a key factor shaping ECT perceptions of readiness. Those who experienced gradual increases in teaching responsibility, supportive mentors, and well-structured placements generally reported feeling prepared to manage classrooms independently. Others described more mixed experiences, often linked to placement quality or the structure of their programmes.

Readiness to support SEND students

Readiness to support SEND students was widely discussed, although experiences varied. Around half described feeling reasonably prepared to support pupils with SEND, but this confidence was usually linked to their placement experiences rather than the taught elements of the course. Several said they learned most about SEND through day-to-day classroom practice, mentor guidance, and exposure to schools with high levels of need. For some, repeated experience with SEND pupils during placements helped build confidence, particularly when they could try strategies and receive feedback.

“From the university, they delivered [SEND content] incredibly well. But maybe if I hadn't been at such a good second placement that did have such a diverse range of SEND adaptations, maybe I wouldn't have felt as confident with it as I do.” (Trainee, North East, Postgraduate, fee funded, Secondary, Geography)

Some trainees felt the course provided useful awareness or theoretical grounding, but lacked practical strategies. They described SEND content as fairly general, becoming meaningful only when applied during placements. A few said they felt confident supporting individual pupils but not whole classes with high levels of need. A few trainees reported feeling underprepared, especially where placements offered limited SEND exposure or where course content was seen as primarily geared towards mainstream traditional teaching. Across accounts, mentoring and school context were central. Trainees with strong mentor support or SEND-focused placements felt more confident, while others still relied heavily on more experienced colleagues.

Sharing with other professionals

A small number of trainees also described sharing aspects of their training with more experienced colleagues, although opportunities to do so were uneven. Some trainees reported informal sharing with mentors or staff, particularly where there was time and openness to discussion. In a few cases, trainees were asked to share recent learning during staff meetings or informal conversations, and this exchange was described as mutually beneficial. Trainees noted that discussing ideas from the course, such as updated terminology or approaches to SEND, sometimes prompted useful dialogue with more experienced teachers and allowed them to compare practices across schools. The practice of sharing learning with other school staff was more prevalent among trainees doing secondary training as compared to those in primary training, although it mostly involved sharing only with their mentors.

“I was lucky in that I did get to do that [share learnings] a lot with my mentor. I would say ‘I've just had a lecture on responsive teaching, or this very specific way to model. Can I try that, please?’ And he'd go, ‘Sure, do

• it’. And so, I'd get to do that, and then we'd talk about it [ ] My mentor

said, ‘I am now a better teacher because I saw you teach them’, so that was a really positive moment.” (Trainee, South East, Secondary)

However, some trainees said that opportunities to share learning were limited by time pressures or a lack of interest from staff. In these cases, teaching staff were described as too busy to engage with trainees’ new ideas, or discussions were confined mainly to mentors. A few trainees also noted that feedback from different teachers could be inconsistent with what they were learning in the course, which sometimes caused confusion.

Involvement of schools in ITT

The effect of the reforms on schools’ involvement in ITT was discussed by ITT providers (n = 13), both training partners (n = 2), all 3 MATs (n = 3), and placement schools (n = 4). Views were mixed, but concerns about capacity and workload were raised more often than positive effects.

Impact on the number of placements and involvement Over half of ITT providers reported reduced placement capacity following the reforms. These providers reported that schools were either taking fewer trainees or withdrawing from partnerships altogether. They described difficulties securing placements, noting that even strong recruitment could not translate into trainee numbers without sufficient school capacity.

“No one has to engage in ITT. It all runs on goodwill. So, the easiest thing for a school to say is that, we're not going to do it for a couple of years. And then what happens when we're trying to place 250 trainees in a small region? It’s really difficult, really, really hard. […] I think the kind of the feeling of schools to just not want to do this anymore was probably not foreseen.” (Accredited provider, SCITT, South East)

Among the 3 MATs, perspectives varied. One reported no real change in their involvement, while another described both increased expectations from subject leaders and reduced overall engagement due to the demands of mentoring. This MAT reported having to turn down trainees due to limited capacity. The third MAT took a more positive view, arguing that the reforms had encouraged schools to take their training role more seriously and discouraged superficial engagement driven by funding rather than quality.

Placement school perspectives were relatively stable. Around half reported no real change in their involvement, noting they had always been committed to hosting trainees. The remaining schools described new or expanded involvement, including one school participating in ITT for the first time.

Factors affecting schools’ involvement in ITT Across the interviews, participants mainly attributed the reduction of involvement and placements to the increased demands associated with mentoring and training, combined with wider pressures on staffing, budgets, and workload.

Most accredited providers and both training partners described how the combined demands of mentoring ITTs and ECTs created a continuous cycle of expectations for schools, which aligns with placement schools marking the implementation of mentoring requirements as challenging in the survey. Interviewed accredited providers noted that while ECT mentoring was now more embedded, some schools were hesitant to take on ITT trainees, particularly smaller schools that could feel overwhelmed by the requirements. Training partners also reported that differences in mentor training expectations across providers made it difficult for schools working with multiple partners, leading some to reduce the number of providers they worked with.

Smaller SCITTs mentioned having more trouble getting school buy-in for mentoring requirements. However, bigger SCITTs mostly included MATs, which might reflect their

ability to engage with schools because of their structure rather than as a result of their size. No other differences were evident across the different stakeholder characteristics.

Although survey findings highlighted that the implementation of practice time requirements was easy to implement by placement schools, some stakeholders also highlighted challenges linked to them. One training partner noted that the expectation for trainees to reach around 80% timetable commitments could be difficult for schools to accommodate, particularly for subjects where there are not many hours of classroom time. A provider also pointed to subject specialist requirements in secondary schools, which limited some schools' ability to host trainees in shortage subjects.

Impact on the relationship between providers and placement schools Over half of ITT providers reported some change in relationships, though these changes were not uniformly negative. Some described stronger relationships built on clearer expectations and more structured support, while others reported strain from the additional demands placed on schools. Several providers and 1 training partner stated that relationships had remained largely the same, particularly where partnerships were already well established and could adapt to the new requirements.

MAT perspectives on relationships were generally positive. Two MAT leads reported improved relationships with providers, noting greater clarity around expectations and a stronger focus on quality. All 3 MAT leads described placements as more structured than before, with clearer mentoring arrangements and expectations, although they noted that the quality of implementation still varied across providers.

Capacity of schools to meet the requirements Many providers acknowledged that schools were facing significant difficulty generally meeting the new requirements. This was the most frequently discussed issue in relation to provider-school relationships. Providers described schools as balancing reform expectations alongside existing pressures such as staff shortages, recruitment challenges, and budget constraints. These pressures were seen as directly affecting placement capacity and, in some cases, the quality of the trainee experience.

A recurring theme across interviews was the tension between improving quality and maintaining sufficient capacity. Some stakeholders, including 1 MAT, felt the reforms had rightly prevented schools from hosting trainees without a clear and focused training offer. From this perspective, reduced participation by some schools was seen as a necessary step to improve quality. However, many providers and 1 MAT leader noted that the practical effect had been fewer placement opportunities, at a time when recruitment challenges were already significant.

Some contextual differences were also noted. One training partner suggested that smaller schools were more easily overwhelmed by the combined demands of ITT and ECT

mentoring. One provider described their region as relatively fortunate in terms of school engagement, implying variation across areas. Subject specialist requirements appeared to affect secondary schools in particular.

Unintended consequences

Unintended consequences of the reforms, including their impact on the wider sector, were discussed by most ITT providers (n = 10), both non-continuing providers (n = 2), and all 3 MATs (n = 3). All participants focused on negative or concerning consequences, particularly those linked to the reaccreditation process, changes in sector structure, increased workload, and reduced flexibility.

Disruptions due to accreditation and initial implementation

A large number of participants were clear that they broadly supported the Quality Requirements but felt the process for implementing them had been highly stressful, poorly managed, and more disruptive than necessary. Several described lasting effects on staff morale and noted it was difficult to separate the intended benefits of the reforms from the experience of reaccreditation. Some also felt that the changes had been introduced in a top-down way, with limited involvement from the sector.

The pace and timing of the reforms were also raised as contributing factors. Some providers felt the changes had been introduced too quickly, particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic, and that this had contributed to the loss of some strong providers that were unable to adapt in the time available.

Impact on the sector’s structure and provision

Stakeholders also described broader impacts on the sector's structure and functioning. Most providers reported reduced collaboration and increased competition following the reforms. Some noted that previously collaborative regional networks had weakened, with fewer opportunities to share practice or maintain School Direct partnerships. One provider described a shift towards more transactional recruitment practices, with greater pressure on trainees to accept offers.

Concerns about regional provision were raised by some providers. In a few areas, longstanding providers had closed, leaving regions with limited provision according to some participants. Both non-continuing providers described significant local impacts following the loss of accreditation. One reported a reduction of around 250 trainees per year in the region, since some trainees chose not to transfer to other providers.

Some providers also described broader changes in the sector landscape. These included the growth of larger national providers, the emergence of lead-partner or franchise-style models, and a perceived reduction in provider diversity. A few felt this had reduced autonomy and uniqueness across the sector, with some distinctive partnership

models disappearing during accreditation. Some also believed that high-quality providers had been lost, particularly where providers lacked the administrative capacity to complete the reaccreditation process.

At the school level, one provider reported that differences in curricula and mentor training across providers had made it more complex for schools to work with multiple partners. In some cases, schools reduced the number of providers they worked with, which was seen as increasing competition and reducing overall capacity.

Concerns about programme design

Several unintended consequences related to programme design were also discussed. A few providers raised concerns that the curriculum had become overly standardised, with less attention to differences between phases or contexts. One suggested that training now reflected some of the same pressures contributing to teacher attrition, including workload and reduced autonomy.

MAT perspectives reflected similar concerns. One MAT reported that programmes had become less bespoke, reducing responsiveness to individual trainee and mentor needs. Another raised concerns about an imbalance between subject knowledge and pedagogical development, and the risk of narrowing teacher development to compliance rather than professional growth.

Some providers also noted unintended overlap between the curriculum content for ITT trainees and ECTs, which resulted in repeated content for trainees. One provider expressed concern that programmes were increasingly being designed to meet inspection requirements rather than educational needs.

Wave 1 Findings: Grant Funding Analysis

Findings from the grant funding survey

A total of 67 participants who received funding for the implementation of the ITT reforms responded to the survey. Of these, 4 were from higher education institutions, 12 from SCITTs, and 51 were from placement schools. Thirty-nine (58%) participants delivered ITT as part of a partnership, 78% (52) covered primary training, and 52% (35) covered secondary training.

Among the providers (HEIs and SCITTs), the median number of trainees during the academic year 2024/2025 was 82.5 (min = 2, max = 1,156). Among the schools, the median number of placements offered in the same year was 5 (min = 0, max = 90[footnote 23]).

All geographic regions, except for East Midlands, were represented. Among the participants who stated their region, 1 worked in each of the East of England, North East, South West, and West Midlands. Three worked in London, 3 in the South East, and 2 in Yorkshire and the Humber.

Set-up grant

Fifteen providers (out of 16 that responded to the survey) received the set-up grant, which was available to accredited providers as a one-off grant for the 2022/2023 academic year. As seen in Figure 24 below, providers reported using the funding especially for the development of curriculum (n = 13), followed by resourcing (such as hiring extra staff, n = 12), and the development of partnerships (n = 9). Eight providers also used the funding to support the costs associated with the administration workload associated with the reforms, and 6 used it to hire education consultants or specialists. All results should be considered under the caveat of the small sample size (n = 15).

Figure 24. Please indicate how your organisation used the Set-up funding (select all that apply) (n = 15)

Costs associated with curriculum development Resourcing - for example, hiring extra staff or for your current staff’s overtime Costs associated with partnership development Costs associated with extra administration workload due to reform transition Education consultants or specialists Other 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 When asked whether the set-up grant was sufficient to cover the costs of the selected activities, 5 participants thought it was mostly sufficient, and 5 others deemed it just about sufficient. Four participants marked the grant as mostly insufficient and 1 as substantially insufficient (Figure 25).

Figure 25. To what extent was the grant funding sufficient to cover the costs of the activities mentioned in the previous question? (n = 15)

Completely sufficient Mostly sufficient Just about sufficient Mostly insufficient Substantially insufficient 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Despite the variation in views about the sufficiency of the grant, all providers strongly agreed or agreed that the funding was useful for their organisation, as seen in Figure 26.

Figure 26. Please indicate your level of agreement with this statement: “This grant was useful to my organisation” (n = 15)

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Twelve of the 15 participants did not experience any barriers when applying for or claiming funding, and only 3 providers reported facing challenges. From these 3 providers, 1 specified that the instructions for claiming were not clear, while 2 discussed the complexity of recording expenditures, and how the evidence for the expenditures was not always straightforward. One of these 3 participants who faced challenges also highlighted the fact that the audit trail needed for the funding added to their costs.

Eight providers said that the grant funding supplemented other income streams (Figure 27). Participants specified how the funding supported set-up activities to avoid impact on their core budget and supplemented other income streams, such as the tuition fees. However, 1 participant also mentioned how their own reserves also supported the set-up activities.

Figure 27. Did the grant funding interact with other income streams (for example, tuition fees, school budgets, central funding)? (n = 15)

Yes, it supplemented other income No significant interaction Not sure Yes, it replaced or displaced other funding 0 2 4 6 8 10

Partnership grant

Fifteen respondents received the partnership grant (3 SCITT, 1 HEI, and 11 placement schools), which was available as one-off funding during the 2022/2023 academic year. Notably, the partnership grant was available only to accredited providers. Therefore, this participation may indicate either a distribution of funds across partnerships or misclassification by survey participants. Organisations reported using the grant mainly for the administration costs related to partnership development (n = 13), quality assurance processes unique to the partnership (n = 9), legal costs for preparing contracts or agreements (n = 4), and IT costs (n = 4), as seen in Figure 28. Furthermore, 6 participants reported using the grant for other purposes, including the training of partnership members, covering overall costs, and some out-of-scope activities such as mentor training, and mentor and trainee time out of class. All results should be considered under the caveat of the small sample size (n = 15).

Figure 28. Please indicate how your organisation used the partnership funding (select all that apply) (n = 15)

Administration related to partnership development Quality assurance processes unique to the partnership Other Legal costs for preparing partnership contracts or agreements IT costs 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 The majority of participants thought the partnership grant was sufficient, with 5 stating it was mostly sufficient and 8 just about sufficient; none thought the grant was completely sufficient (Figure 29). One provider thought the funding was mostly insufficient, and another 1 said it was substantially insufficient.

Figure 29. To what extent was the grant funding sufficient to cover the costs of the activities mentioned in the previous question? (n = 15)

Completely sufficient Mostly sufficient Just about sufficient Mostly insufficient Substantially insufficient 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Most of the providers (n = 13) reported that the partnership funding was useful for their organisation, while the remaining (n = 2) neither agreed nor disagreed (Figure 30). Twelve providers did not experience any challenges when applying for or claiming funding, while 3 expressed experiencing barriers. From these 3 providers, 2 discussed how the communication, including the portal for claims, was unclear. One of the participants also added how the additional costs of auditing posed a challenge for them.

Figure 30. Please indicate your level of agreement with this statement: “This grant was useful to my organisation” (n = 15)

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 As seen in Figure 31 below, 7 providers reported that the partnership grant did not interact significantly with other funding streams, while 6 said it did. Among those who reported interaction, 2 participants reported that the grant was used on top of the income obtained from training fees and departmental budgets.

Figure 31. Did the grant funding interact with other income streams (for example, tuition fees, school budgets, central funding)? (n = 15)

No significant interaction Yes, it supplemented other income Not sure Yes, it replaced or displaced other funding 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

ITAP grant

Thirty-two participants, including 16 providers (12 SCITT and 4 HEIs) and 16 schools, reported receiving the ITAP grant. As the ITAP grant was available only to accredited providers, this again indicates either resource sharing within partnerships or a possible misclassification by respondents.

Participants indicated using the grant for paying for the time of experts to prepare the ITAP element (n = 27; 14 providers and 13 schools), paying schools for the delivery of ITAP (n = 24; 8 providers and 16 schools), paying for people delivering ITAP (n = 19; 14 providers and 5 schools), and paying schools for organising visits related to ITAP (n = 7; 5 providers and 2 schools) (Figure 32).

Figure 32. Please indicate how your organisation used the ITAP grant in the 2024/25 academic year (select all that apply) (n = 32)

Paying for the time that subject specialists and other experts spent on

preparing an intensive training and practice element Paying schools to deliver the ’in-school’

element of intensive training and practice Paying for subject specialists and other experts to deliver this element to trainees Paying schools for organising visits related to the intensive training and practice (but not delivering the content) Other 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 The majority of participants (n = 22; 14 providers and 8 schools) stated that the grant was sufficient to cover the costs of ITAP activities, as seen in Figure 33. On the other hand, 8 participants (all providers) deemed the grant as mostly insufficient, and 2 participants (1 provider and 1 school) stated it was substantially insufficient.

Figure 33. To what extent was the grant funding sufficient to cover the costs of the activities mentioned in the previous question? (n = 32)

Completely sufficient Mostly sufficient Just about sufficient Mostly insufficient Substantially insufficient 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 All providers (n = 16) and 13 schools agreed or strongly agreed that the grant was useful for their organisation, while 2 schools disagreed and 1 neither agreed nor disagreed (Figure 34).

Twenty-eight participants reported not experiencing any challenges or barriers when applying for or claiming funding. Only 4 providers and 2 schools reported facing challenges around the application and claiming of the grant. Providers specified that their challenges involved the difficulty of covering the costs until they were able to receive the grant in arrears, the laborious and complicated claiming process, as well as the additional resources required for the claiming and auditing elements. One school said they would receive different amounts of funding for ITAP from the different providers they worked with.

Figure 34. Please indicate your level of agreement with this statement: “This grant was useful to my organisation” (n = 32)

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 0 5 10 15 20 25 Only 8 participants (5 providers and 3 schools) reported that the funding had interacted with other funding streams, as seen in Figure 35 below. They specified that the ITAP grant had supplemented their income streams, including the tuition fees, to allow them to deliver the activities associated with its planning and delivery.

Figure 35. Did the grant funding interact with other income streams (for example, tuition fees, school budgets, central funding)? (n = 32)

No significant interaction Not sure Yes, it supplemented other income Yes, it replaced or displaced other funding 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Lead mentor grant

Thirty-three respondents reported receiving the lead mentor grant, identifying as either accredited providers (n = 16; 12 SCITTs and 4 HEIs) or placement schools (n = 17).

However, the lead mentor grant was available exclusively to accredited providers, again suggesting either resource sharing across partnerships, possible misclassification by participants, or a misunderstanding of the grant received.

As seen in Figure 36 below, participants indicated using the grant mainly to cover for lead mentors to do their lead mentor training (n = 26; 12 providers and 14 schools), the development of ITAP content (n = 21; 13 providers and 8 schools), and to cover for lead mentors while they provide general mentor training (n = 18; 10 providers and 8 schools). Three providers reported using it for ‘Other’ purposes, including for lead mentor set-up costs such as planning, for funding additional roles and responsibilities, and to pay for resources for training, such as online platforms. Four schools also reported using it for ‘Other’ objectives, such as paying for lead mentors to be released during working hours, for QA processes and visits, and for contributing to the overall school budget.

Figure 36. Please indicate how your organisation used the lead mentor funding (select all that apply) (n = 33)

Cover for lead mentors doing lead mentor training Development of ITAP content Cover for lead mentors providing general mentor training Other 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Eleven providers and 13 schools reported that the funding was sufficient to some extent to cover the costs of the lead mentor activities, while 5 providers and 4 schools thought they were mostly or substantially insufficient (Figure 37).

Figure 37. To what extent was the grant funding sufficient to cover the costs of the activities mentioned in the previous question? (n = 33)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

There was a general agreement that the lead mentor grant had been useful for their organisations, with all providers and 14 schools reporting they either agreed or strongly agreed. Only 2 schools reported they disagreed, while a third neither agreed nor disagreed (Figure 38).

Figure 38. Please indicate your level of agreement with this statement: “This grant was useful to my organisation” (n = 33)

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 0 5 10 15 20 25 Twenty-nine participants did not experience any challenges or barriers when applying for or claiming funding. Only 4 providers described facing challenges during the application and claiming process. They mainly discussed a lack of clarity around the claiming process. Providers described how they were unaware of the process until they had spent the money, so working backwards was harder. They also noted that both the claiming process and the audits imposed a significant administrative burden, resulting in additional costs and staff time[footnote 24].

Two schools also reported facing challenges in the claiming process, mainly due to a lack of clarity about the claiming process.

Thirteen participants (7 providers and 6 schools) said they had no significant interactions between the grant and other income streams, as seen in Figure 39 below. For the participants who stated some sort of interaction (n = 12; 7 providers and 5 schools), some explained that it supplemented their tuition fees and added to the overall school budget.

Figure 39. Did the grant funding interact with other income streams (for example, tuition fees, school budgets, central funding)? (n = 33)

No significant interaction Yes, it supplemented other income Not sure Yes, it replaced or displaced other funding 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

General mentor grant

A total of 48 participants reported receiving the grant and identified as representatives of placement schools (n = 41) or accredited providers (6 SCITTs and 1 HEI). Notably, the general mentor grant was available only to placement schools. Therefore, this participation may indicate either a distribution of funds across partnerships, misclassification by survey participants, responding on behalf of another partner, or a misunderstanding of the grant received.

As seen in Figure 40, participants reported using the general mentor grant mostly for paying another person to take over lessons while a mentor is training (n = 41, 6 providers and 35 schools), paying for any other costs associated with reducing the mentor’s responsibilities so they have time to train (n = 22, 3 providers and 19 schools). Eleven participants (3 providers and 8 schools) also reported using the funding to pay for

someone to teach while the mentor was taking time in lieu, and 9 (3 providers and 6 schools) said they spent it on paying overtime for mentors to take training outside their regular hours. Three participants also specified they had used the funding for other purposes, including contributing to the overall budget, covering lessons for mentoring time, and allowing mentors to purchase high-quality resources for their department.

Figure 40. Please indicate how your organisation used the general mentor grant (select all that apply) (n = 48)

Paying for someone to take over lessons while a mentor is training

Paying for any costs that came from reducing a mentor’s other responsibilities so they had time to train Paying for someone to teach if a mentor takes time off in lieu to train Overtime payment to the mentor, if they are training outside normal working hours Other 0 10 20 30 40 50 When participants were asked about the perceived sufficiency of the general mentor grant, the majority thought it was sufficient to some extent (n = 31, 5 providers and 26 schools). On the contrary, 2 providers and 15 schools thought it was insufficient (Figure 41).

Figure 41. To what extent was the grant funding sufficient to cover the costs of the activities mentioned in the previous question? (n = 48)

Completely sufficient Mostly sufficient Just about sufficient Mostly insufficient Substantially insufficient 0 5 10 15 20 Most participants also agreed that the grant had been useful for their organisation (n = 40; all 7 providers and 33 schools). Three schools did not find the grant useful (Figure 42).

Figure 42. Please indicate your level of agreement with this statement: “This grant was useful to my organisation” (n = 48)

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 0 5 10 15 20 25 Thirty-seven participants did not experience any challenges when applying for or claiming funding, while 11 placement schools reported experiencing barriers. Multiple participants specified that their challenges were related to the difficulty and lack of clarity on how to complete the forms, with links and portals being hard to navigate and a lack of communication to clarify any issues. One participant discussed how the claiming system did not allow them to claim for multiple schools at the same time, as a trust. Another shared how it had been impossible for them to claim additional funding for further training for the same mentor. One participant also stated that they had not received the payment because of inconsistencies in the claiming system. A different participant shared how schools were worried about the fact that they could be audited, leading to a request for a refund of the money received.

Five providers (out of 7) and 18 schools reported that the general mentor grant did not interact with other income streams, as seen in Figure 43. Fourteen participants were not sure (all schools), and 11 (2 providers and 9 schools) reported some sort of interaction. Among the providers that reported an interaction with other funding streams, 1 SCITT explained that the grant supplemented their income from tuition fees. Schools that reported some sort of interaction explained that the funding contributed to the school budget.

Figure 43. Did the grant funding interact with other income streams (for example, tuition fees, school budgets, central funding)? (n = 48)

No significant interaction Not sure Yes, it supplemented other income Yes, it replaced or displaced other funding 0 5 10 15 20 25

Findings from the follow-up interviews with financial leads within ITT providers and schools

Three participants (all SCITTs) participated in follow-up interviews for the grant funding analysis element of this research. All 3 were accredited providers who received funding through the offered grants. Given the small sample size, findings should be considered as a reflection of the experiences and specific contexts of these participants rather than as a representative perspective of grant recipients.

Use of funding

Activities funded by the grants

Set-up grant Two participants reported that the set-up grant enabled a substantial overhaul of the ITT curriculum, including updating it in line with ITT reform guidance and embedding the ITTECF, as well as strengthening and improving specific curriculum elements. They explained that the grant provided capacity by freeing one lead from day-to-day operational responsibilities and funding colleagues’ time out of school so they could focus on curriculum design and development. Most of the funding was described as being spent on creating a substantial bank of resources, including materials produced by subject specialists for secondary subjects and for English, maths, and science in the primary phase, with a smaller proportion used for related infrastructure, such as structuring the intranet and informing staff about the changes.

Partnership grant One participant reported that partnership funding was used to set up and support collaborative working with training partners, who joined the partnership in 2024. They explained that a significant portion of the funding supported the establishment of these new partnerships with a strong focus on developing partners’ understanding of the new ITT criteria and the implications for partnership working. The funding was described as enabling regular conferences, one‑to‑one work and school visits to build this understanding.

Lead mentor grant All participants reported that the lead mentor grant was used to support the establishment and delivery of a lead mentor role or team, including funding time for lead mentors.

General mentor grant One participant reported that the general mentor grant funding was used to cover at least 1 hour of time for mentors to meet with their trainees, from the 1.5 specified in the Quality Requirements.

ITAP grant One participant reported that the ITAP grant supported collaborative ITAP activities delivered by different providers across the partnership. The funding supported the delivery of the ITAP sessions.

Impact on financial planning and resource allocation

Two participants discussed how grant funding affected their financial planning and resource allocation.

Complexity due to partnerships and trainee numbers Both participants reported that planning across multiple partnerships created financial complexity, as costs did not scale proportionally with trainee numbers. One explained that geographical factors and trainee distribution meant expenditure, such as setting up ITAP hubs or lead mentoring, often failed to align neatly with trainee volumes, with smaller partnerships still requiring full-time roles like lead mentors despite having only 10-20 trainees.

Fluctuations driven by bursaries and timing Both noted challenges from year-on-year variability in bursaries and grant notifications, which affected trainee recruitment numbers and subject mix. For example, generous bursaries for maths or geography drew many applicants, while reduced bursaries for other subjects led to few or no applications. They also expressed how forward planning was difficult as funds arrived late.

Separation of finance and programme teams One participant described difficulties arising from finance and programme teams operating separately, requiring them to oversee grant claims personally as financial processes differed markedly from programme delivery. Participants also raised difficulties such as the need to pool funding across branches to cover mentor release time, and headteachers absorbing extra costs to prioritise quality over profit.

Timing of the funding

All 3 participants discussed challenges arising from the timing of grant payments.

Lag funding and upfront costs All 3 reported that grants were lag-funded, requiring substantial upfront expenditure before reimbursement, which created cashflow pressure. One participant highlighted the risk this posed for a large organisation delivering ITT to over 500 trainees, with costs for ITAP, lead mentoring, and partnership development paid in advance and only recovered later.

Impact on schools and mentor engagement Two participants explained that the delay reduced school buy-in for mentor release, as leaders saw costs upfront without prompt payment. One added that earlier funding might increase commitment to mentoring roles, while schools relied on small reserves or last year's funds to bridge gaps.

Variations in specific grant timing One participant viewed the overall timing as acceptable, with the set-up grant arriving easily and lead mentor funding as expected (though later than ideal), allowing planning around it.

Match between delivery costs and funding

All 3 participants discussed how grant funding compared to actual delivery costs.

General mentor grant insufficient for full mentoring role All 3 reported that the general mentor grant fell short of covering the true costs of mentor requirements. One participant stated that it supported mentor training. Two participants highlighted that it only partially funded release time for mentoring activities, requiring schools to absorb costs or use creative scheduling. However, it is important to note that mentoring activities were beyond the scope of the funding.

ITAP and set-up grants did not cover hidden costs All 3 explained that ITAP funding only covered visible or incidental costs (like staff time for sessions or refreshments) but not essentials such as hiring spaces, senior leader involvement in learning walks, or backfill during curriculum redesign. Two interviewees highlighted that set-up grants underestimated time-intensive work like specialist curriculum development, effectively requiring the organisation to fund 2 roles for the price of one.

Lead mentor funding masked uneven costs Two participants noted that lead mentor funding appeared adequate at the headline level, but would not be enough to cover mentoring for multiple general mentors fully. One small provider felt it lacked ongoing support compared to larger providers, while schools would spread roles across staff to make it work.

Experiences with the funding process

Claims and allocation of the funding

All 3 participants discussed their experiences claiming and allocating the various grants, including challenges similar to the ones mentioned in the survey.

Administrative burden, complexity, and decentralisation All participants highlighted aspects of the claims process that were time-consuming or complex. One participant found the claims process difficult to navigate, particularly understanding annexes and funding streams, and felt that, while written guidance was extensive, more direct support, such as a workshop or someone talking them through the process, would have helped turn guidance into clear actions and deadlines. They also reported that managing grant guidance was very time-consuming, with documents arriving unexpectedly and requiring careful reading to identify timelines and actions, and that queries could take up to five working days for a response, making the process feel slow and cumbersome.

Another participant described managing grant claims as challenging because much of the day-to-day liaison involved repeatedly chasing finance staff and securing approval from the group finance director for each submission, and they felt the ITT programme team often had to direct the finance team. The participant also discussed how the guidance was scattered and hardly accessible, instead of sitting under a single comprehensive finance manual.

The third participant noted that mentor funding is linked to individual school DfE accounts, so each professional lead must claim their own funds, which they described as time- consuming but manageable, and suggested that a centralised way for the trust to submit claims on behalf of schools would be more efficient. One participant

emphasised that managing mentor and training grants requires someone whose job is fully focused on it, particularly for smaller organisations, as the documents are detailed, time- consuming, and complex and require careful tracking of individual mentor hours. Another participant noted that guidance for different funding streams, including school grants and bursaries outside ITT reforms, is scattered across multiple sources, making it difficult to locate the correct guidance for each stream.

Ease of claiming different grants Two participants described differences in how straightforward it was to claim the various grants. One participant reported that the set-up grant was straightforward and came through without issues, and that the lead mentor grant was also easy to access and arrived as expected. They explained that, although some disparities were identified during sample checks, these were addressed, and communication with DfE to resolve them was clear. The same participant stated that the general mentor grant had been easy overall, especially where the trust could manage central schools as a single application overseen by one person[footnote 25], but that schools outside the trust found it more of a struggle, including confusion about what could be applied for and whether claims should be for 20 hours or 16 hours. Another participant said that all grants had ultimately come through and described obtaining the grants and managing the process as straightforward and without issues, suggesting this might be because they were a small provider or had an exceptionally competent office manager.

Clarity of funding offer, but low uptake One participant from a MAT reported that the availability and purpose of the general mentor grant were clearly communicated to mentors and schools, yet recent audits showed extremely low uptake, with only 4 or 5 claims out of around 400 mentors. Despite multiple communications with the schools, they felt that claims were often deprioritised or forgotten at the point of submission, typically falling to mentors or ITT coordinators who were already very busy.

Reporting requirements

Participants discussed how they had experienced reporting as part of the use of the grants.

Audit risk One participant described audits as having high risk for potential clawback and being generally unclear, with uncertainty over how to evidence appropriate spending. They felt guidance on tracking and recording expenses only became clear during the audit itself, and that audits tended to be “tick box” and narrow, not reflecting the complexity of ITT delivery. They found it particularly difficult to evidence ITAP and lead mentoring delivered in partnership, noting that roles such as lead mentors do not benefit from economies of scale and are hard to represent proportionally in standard spreadsheets. Another participant outlined a sample check where training hours per mentor were cross- referenced with school claims. They reported that disparities occurred when mentors worked across multiple providers and schools outside the trust were unsure where to record hours, but stressed this was due to confusion rather than dishonesty. They also raised concerns that standardised reporting formats and terminology do not always align with how different partnerships and providers operate, which can contribute to misunderstandings during audits.

Reporting capability A third participant said their organisation could obtain figures and keep records well, which made reporting straightforward. They noted that a recent Annex request for lead mentor and ITAP grants arrived late in the year, but still found the process manageable. They explained that they mainly evidenced colleague time and felt that, despite rushed timing, the reporting went through without issues once handled internally.

Overall communications

Participants discussed how they had experienced the timing, clarity, and targeting of financial communications.

Timing and capacity One participant reported that the timing and communication of financial processes were challenging, particularly for completing annexes and submitting requests. They found that key information could be difficult to locate and sometimes appeared only in reminder emails rather than a single clear source, which made managing deadlines harder. The same provider also noted that much of the process required them to read and interpret extensive documentation independently, and that turning guidance into concrete steps for claims and reporting was time-consuming.

Clarity of guidance and systems Another participant described most guidance and systems as clear and concise. They found it helpful that guidance documents were only a few pages long and that the systems were clear from the start. They stated that, for the lead mentor and general mentor grants, it was made clear early on that activity needed to be tracked, which supported mentors effectively, and that the criteria for using the set-up grant were incredibly clear and straightforward to implement. It was also discussed how the reporting for the lead mentor and ITAP grants was manageable. They also reported that the website and email address for queries were consistently helpful, with supportive and informative responses.

Mixed messages and persistent points of confusion One participant highlighted specific areas where communication caused confusion. They mentioned that multiple annexes were called “Annex G,” which made it difficult to know which form was required, and suggested that clearer naming, such as “lead mentor grant form,” would be more helpful.

Perceived impact of the funding

Main benefits

In alignment with the survey findings, all participants found the grants useful and discussed the perceived main benefits of receiving the funding.

Enabling reform and programme improvement Two participants felt the funding was crucial for delivering ITT reforms and improving programmes. One participant said the initiative was very welcome and showed that DfE understood the pressures on providers during complex and rapid reforms, with ITAP and initial partnership set-up funding particularly appreciated as it recognised financial and capacity pinch points. Another participant reported that, without the grant, they would not have been able to strengthen the curriculum, resources, and subject specificity, as they lacked reserves to do this independently, and that the set-up grant allowed them to reshape the programme, obtain resources quickly, and bring colleagues together to collaborate.

Supporting school and mentor engagement One participant stressed that the combination of grants underpinned school and mentor participation. They explained that the lead mentor grant had been useful in paying for time, providing oversight of general mentors and shifting their focus towards supporting mentors. They also stated that, without the general mentor grant and the ITAP grant, it would be difficult to secure buy-in from schools and meet the rigid requirements of ITAP delivery.

Protecting staff time and recognising pressures All participants noted that the funding helped protect staff time and recognise sector pressures. One participant felt that the funding streams were appropriate overall, helping to raise the profile of initiatives such as ITAP within organisations. Another participant highlighted that the grant funding could not be used for “usual business,” which created space to bring in colleagues to lead reforms while core funding sustained day-to-day work. A third participant commented that the grants supported additional professional input into initial teacher training, especially through the lead mentor role, and provided mechanisms such as timetabled release or small payments to protect workload and wellbeing while meeting programme requirements.

Sustainability of impact

Participants also discussed the sustainability of the impact for the future.

Set-up and partnership activity One participant felt their organisation could probably absorb the costs of the initial Set- up and partnership grants without major impact. Another explained that the set-up grant allowed colleagues to shape subject specificity within the curriculum, but that these resources will need updating, and it would be hard to attract colleagues to do this work again without a similar grant.

Lead and general mentor grants All participants highlighted the importance of the lead mentor and general mentor grants for sustaining mentoring structures. One participant stated that both grants are essential because they factor in colleague time, reduce workload, and protect mental health, and that, without them, there would be concerns about colleague wellbeing, reduced mentor participation and knock-on effects on trainee numbers. Another participant noted that funding for lead mentors had already dropped, making it harder to cover release time and convince headteachers to release mentors for sufficient hours.

ITAP grant and school participation All participants regarded the ITAP grant as critical to sustaining effective delivery. One participant felt the ITAP grant could not be absorbed, as losing it would harm the quality of delivery. Another described it as crucial because ITAP relies on many expert colleagues teaching trainees alongside their regular classes, which would be difficult without financial support.

Unintended effects

Participants also raised some unintended consequences of the funding.

Additional burden One participant noted that managing multiple funding streams created extra work for the finance department, requiring frequent communication and effort to integrate ITT-related funding into their usual workload. They felt that low uptake of general mentor funding highlighted limited capacity within schools to manage and submit claims, which became a practical barrier to using the funding fully.

Initial reflections on improvements

Interviewees from both the IPE and the GFA components of this research discussed elements that could be improved in future implementation of reforms. These included:

• Allow adequate implementation time. Several providers felt the pace of change

was too fast, particularly coming straight after the COVID-19 pandemic. The compressed timelines made it difficult to introduce major changes while still running existing programmes. Some stakeholders noted that universities needed longer lead-in times than SCITTs because of more complex approval processes. However, it is important to note that the proposed timescale in the initial consultation was even shorter.

• Ensure clear communication and consistent guidance. Communication

challenges were raised across several areas of the reforms. Providers described confusion around the requirements and changes to them. They also discussed how the changes, such as the one regarding the hours of mentor training, damaged their relationships with placement schools and caused confusion around the Quality Requirements[footnote 26]. Non-continuing providers reported limited or unclear feedback on accreditation decisions. Furthermore, some providers felt the overall direction and goals of the reforms were not always clear and were not clearly communicated to the sector. Participants discussed how these factors, combined with the increased workload resulting from the reforms, affected the wellbeing of those working in the sector.

• Continue general mentor funding. Many providers, schools, and MATs

highlighted the importance of funding for general mentors. Grants were seen as essential for releasing staff time and maintaining mentoring quality in favour of trainees’ experiences. Continued support for mentoring was viewed as critical to sustaining high-quality training and supporting retention of both mentors and trainees.

• Engage more closely with the sector. Several providers expressed a desire for

more collaborative approaches to reform design and implementation. Earlier and more consistent engagement with the sector could help identify practical issues and support smoother implementation in the future. Where collaborative support from DfE or its ITT Quality Associates was discussed, it was viewed positively.

Simplify and front-load guidance. Grant recipients expressed that they would like to have clearer, standardised categories for activities and expenditure to support consistent reporting and auditing. They would favour a single, comprehensive finance manual covering all funding streams, responsibilities and sign-off processes

as the primary reference point, and to have some training (for example, webinars or workshops) to know how to follow the procedures.

Improve communications and naming conventions. Grant recipients said they would like to have more simplified form names (that is, remove Annex G versions) and for DfE to check and update key contacts annually, so messages go to the right ITT leads rather than being scattered across finance or admin staff.

Align policy with school realities and context. Participants proposed involving headteachers, school leaders, and experienced ITT providers more directly in the design of funding models and reforms, to surface practical constraints. According to their views, DfE should consider how accountability frameworks (for example, inspection expectations) could recognise or incentivise meaningful ITT engagement and take account of geographical and socio-economic differences when setting expectations, recognising that schools in different areas and circumstances may face different challenges.

Sustainability through funding. Participants proposed reviewing the lead mentor funding model and considering redirecting a greater share of funding to general mentor posts, so mentors are directly paid and given protected time for their work in order to provide high-quality mentoring to trainees. Participants also discussed how maintaining the ITAP grant would be beneficial to sustain its delivery and school buy-in.

Annex: Secondary Data Analysis

Grant funding data

We analysed secondary data provided by DfE, including grant funding data covering set- up, partnership, general mentor, lead mentor, and ITAP grants. This dataset included the amounts organisations were eligible to claim, the costs reported by the grant, and the amounts they received.

Set-up grant[footnote 27]

Providers awarded accreditation in 2022 were eligible for a one-off £25,000. According to DfE grant funding data, a total of 157 organisations were eligible to receive this grant. On average, organisations reported costs of £26,492, with reported expenditure ranging from £1,485 to £152,687. 39% of organisations reported costs exceeding the maximum eligible amount, and 29% reported costs below the maximum eligible.

All 157 organisations received the grant. The average grant award was £23,250, with individual awards ranging from £1,485 to £25,000. 59% obtained the amount they mentioned as the cost incurred.

Partnership grant[footnote 28]

Eligibility for this grant was tiered based on the number of trainees who were trained by the unsuccessful provider or lead partner in 2021/22: £10,000 for fewer than 50 trainees, £15,000 for 50–249 trainees, and £20,000 for 250 or more trainees. According to the DfE grant funding data, a total of 25 organisations were eligible to receive this grant. Of these, 3 were eligible for £20,000, 14 for £15,000, and 8 for £10,000. On average, organisations reported costs of £12,170, with reported expenditure ranging from £1,075 to £20,000. While the grant set maximum funding thresholds, 4 of the 25 organisations reported costs exceeding their maximum eligible amount and 12 below their maximum eligibility.

All 25 organisations received the partnership grant. On average, organisations received £11,986, with awards ranging from £1,075 to £20,000. In most cases (21 out of 25), organisations received funding equal to their reported costs. No organisation received more than its maximum eligible amount, even where reported costs exceeded this threshold.

ITAP grant[footnote 29]

Eligibility for this grant was set at £204 per postgraduate trainee and £298 per undergraduate trainee. According to DFE grant funding data, a total of 165 organisations were eligible for the ITAP grant. The average maximum funding available for the 2024/25 academic year was £29,747, with eligibility ranging from £2,244 to £188,904.

On average, organisations reported incurred costs of £28,850, with reported costs ranging from £600 to £198,904. 23% of organisations reported costs exceeding their maximum funding allocation, while 32% reported costs below their maximum eligible funding[footnote 30].

163 organisations received the ITAP Grant. The average grant awarded was £25,818, with awards ranging from £600 to £188,904. Three-quarters (77%) of organisations received funding that matched the costs they reported incurring.

Lead mentor grant[footnote 31]

Eligibility for this grant was set at £9,514 per lead mentor or mentor leadership team (based on a ratio of one lead mentor per minimum of 25 trainees) for postgraduate and three-year undergraduate courses. Providers offering four-year postgraduate courses were eligible for £11,894 per lead mentor or mentor leadership team. According to the DfE grant funding data, a total of 166 organisations were eligible for the lead mentor grant. The average maximum funding available for the 2024/25 academic year was £59,639, with eligibility ranging from £9,514 to £332,990.

On average, organisations reported incurred costs of £59,334, with reported costs ranging from £845 to £299,202. Just over a quarter (26%) of organisations reported costs exceeding their maximum funding allocation, while 30% reported costs below their maximum eligible funding[footnote 32].

165 organisations received the lead mentor grant. The average grant awarded was £51,474, with awards ranging from £845 to £299,202. Three-quarters (75%) of organisations received funding that matched the costs they reported incurring.

General mentor grant

Claims from the 2023/24 academic year, early adopters

Information was received from a total of 234 unique schools. Most schools (75%) submitted 1 claim, 15% submitted 2 claims, and the remainder submitted 3 or more, with a maximum of 12 claims submitted by a single school.

In terms of valid claims, 66% of schools had 1 valid claim, 13% had 2, and 12% had no valid claims. The remaining 9% had 3 or more valid claims, with a maximum of 12 valid claims for a single school.

The average amount claimed per school was £169,557, ranging from £13,140 to £1,302,750. The average amount validated was £117,335, with values ranging from £0 to £573,520. 84% of schools received the full amount they claimed.

Claims from the 2024/25 academic year

Information was received from 7,666 unique schools. Most schools (68%) submitted 1 claim, 16% submitted 2 claims, and the remainder submitted 3 or more, with a maximum of 26 claims submitted by a single school.

The average amount claimed per school was £215,002, ranging from £4,380 to £2,047,520. At the time the information was received, not all claims had been audited, so only claimed amounts (rather than validated amounts) were available.

© Crown copyright 2026 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/version/3. Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Reference: RR1668 Isbn: 978-1-83870-867-2 For any enquiries regarding this publication, contact www.gov.uk/contact-dfe.

This document is available for download at www.gov.uk/government/publications.