The future of ICT in the Curriculum

Text of letter sent in reply to a joint letter from ITTE, Naace and MirandaNet to Mr Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education, on Friday 19th October 2012, expressing concerns about the removal of ICT Teacher Training courses.

Comments are invited to christina@mirandanet.org.uk.

201 2/0069749P0DL
Rt Hon David Laws MP
Minister of State for Schools
Sanctuary Buildings 20 Great Smith Street Westminster London SW1P 3BT
tel: 0370 000 2288 www.education.gov.uk/help/contactus

Katherine Watson

14th November2012

Dear Katherine

Subject: Information and Communications Technology (ICT)

Thank you for your email of 19 October, addressed to the Secretary of State, about the recently announced removal of ICT courses for 2013/14. I am replying as the Minister responsible for this policy area.

I am grateful to you for writing in such great detail, along with Ms Christina Preston and Mr Mark Chambers, highlighting your areas of concern.

You ask whether computer science initial teacher training (ITT) courses will contain content on information technology and digital literacy, as there will be a need for teachers to cover all three of these elements in delivering the revised ICT Programmes of Study when these come into force in September 2014. As a recent communication from the Teaching Agency has clarified, computer science ITT courses can cover other aspects of ICT. It is the responsibility of providers, working with schools, to define and design the specifics of computer science ITT programmes, which must produce teachers capable of teaching to at least GCSE level in the subject and have ‘computer science’ in their title. As long as these conditions are met, programmes can include other elements of the ICT curriculum. ITT courses are not exclusively related to the named subject of the allocated places. For example, in science, training places are allocated specifically to physics, chemistry and biology, with trainees required to teach the specialism at Key Stage 4 — but there is nothing to stop the training from covering general science at Key Stage 3.

You also point out that appropriately skilled teachers will be needed to cater for current Key Stage 3 and 4 pupils who are taking ICT exams. We will still be training teachers in ICT during 2012/13 to become newly qualified teachers, and there ¡s a large population of existing ICT teachers in schools already. To maintain existing ICT ITT courses, given the long-term developments in the subject area, would be a waste of public money and give any future Key Stage 4 ICT trainees very poor future employment prospects.

You also express concern over the number of new specialist computing teachers being trained, and recommend that the number of training places on qualifying courses ¡s doubled to bring the total to 1000. The Department has projected, on the basis of the best evidence available, that 560 training places are required to satisfy the current demand for teachers to meet ICT/computer science requirements. The Teaching Agency has met the demands of the system through its allocations — and as a result of School Direct requests, as well as bids from ITT providers, 835 computer science places have now been allocated. Further trainees are also expected to take up the subject via the Teach First initiative. These teachers will enter the workforce in 201 4, and schools will be providing continuing professional development (CPD) to up-skill their current teachers. There is, therefore, time for the system to adapt before the revised ICT curriculum is introduced. Training places for computer science, along with those for other subjects, will continue to be reviewed annually and adjusted as the demand for such teachers rises or falls.

You point out that the policy of removing all ICT ITT courses does not distinguish between those existing ICT courses that already train computer science specialists who are able to teach to GCSE level, and those which need to be redesigned from the ground up. You recommend that an audit is conducted of existing provision to help identify which providers can best offer computer science courses, and those placed to offer more hybrid ICT and computing courses for delivery in 2013/14. The position here is that if an accredited ITT provider currently runs a computer science course which has been approved to develop and deliver computer science programmes, they can request that any computer science course they currently run which is badged as ICT can be renamed. It is up to the provider to ensure that the course matches the required content — if it does not, the provider potentially risks its accreditation.

You stress the importance of communicating decisions on computer science ITT course allocations to providers and potential applicants at the earliest possible opportunity, and the need to make clear which providers will receive allocations for teacher training, for how many places, and in what areas. The results of the computer science ITT allocations for both providers and School Direct bids have been distributed in line with the agreed schedule.

You contend that computer science teaching at Key Stage 4 is not yet well established in schools, and that the BCS Network of Computer Science Teaching Excellence may not be extensive enough for providers to work with — through School Direct or PGCE — to meet recruitment requirements. You ask whether Ofsted will be told to be lenient in inspecting the new computer science ITT training courses for a two year period, while more schools develop Key Stage 4 courses and links between schools and providers can be facilitated. The Department cannot instruct Ofsted to be lenient, as Ofsted is an independent and impartial body that reports directly to Parliament. The Teaching Agency has kept Mr David Brown, National Advisor for ICT, informed of the changes, and regularly meets with Ofsted’s ITT inspection division. The Teaching Agency will express the view that those on the ‘front line’ in schools need reassurance that Ofsted recognises that it will take time for schools and providers to implement the computer science component of the revised ICT Programmes of Study, not least because of CPD workforce issues.

You stress the importance of getting Subject Knowledge Enhancement (SKE) courses in place as soon as possible, and marketed by the providers selected to deliver them. I understand that as the computer science ITT programmes develop, there will be a need to put in place courses to offer graduates of other subjects pre-ITT courses in computer science. We are, therefore, opening up a bidding round for computer science SKE courses starting this academic year, for trainees commencing computer science ITT courses in 2013/14. Providers have already been asked to submit an outline of their proposals along with the numbers of places and length of courses they wish to deliver. Courses will be of appropriate length (from 2 to 36 weeks duration) to enable trainees to acquire the requisite level of subject knowledge.

You also suggest that consideration should be given to awarding computer science trainees the highest priority bursary rates, as received by other specialised science colleagues. The Department reviews financial incentives regularly and will do so again before we announce arrangements for 2014/1 5. We consider carefully whether a higher amount would increase the quality of trainees, balanced against the very significant cost of bursaries as a recruitment tool. There has been a long history of recruiting too few chemistry and physics teachers, while those recruited are, on average, of lower quality than in other subjects. For this reason, these subjects currently attract the most generous bursaries. This is not the case with all specialist science places: biology places, where the record of recruitment is stronger, receive less generous bursaries.

Thank you again for writing on these important issues. I would be grateful if you would share this letter with Ms Preston and Mr Chambers.

Yours sincerely,

David Laws MP

[Back to the top]

[Back]