In England, the ECF supports new teachers’ development. However, what’s on offer doesn’t satisfy every appetite
I teach trainee science teachers. Over the past few years I’ve seen a huge change in the way we train teachers and how the Department for Education (DfE) prescribes training in England. In addition, what happens to trainees once they have completed their training year has significantly altered. Previously, they spent one year as a newly qualified teacher (NQT), working with a mentor and gathering evidence to meet the Teachers’ Standards. Now, they spend two years as an early career teacher (ECT) on the Early career framework (ECF). Introduced in September 2021, the government-directed ECF is a two-year support package for developing teachers. I’ve been investigating the ECF’s promise and problems.
What is the role of the ECF?
Since 2014 in England, teacher training has faced an ongoing challenge to recruit and retain secondary school teachers in many subjects, particularly in chemistry and physics. Teaching, particularly in STEM subjects, has become both less competitive in salary and less attractive, reportedly due to its lack of flexibility and high workload. In addition, retaining teachers in their first five years remains challenging.
Since 2014 in England, teacher training has faced an ongoing challenge to recruit and retain secondary school teachers in many subjects, particularly in chemistry and physics (bit.ly/3TMrDP2). Teaching, particularly in STEM subjects, has become both less competitive in salary and less attractive, reportedly due to its lack of flexibility and high workload. In addition, retaining teachers in their first five years remains challenging.
The ECF underpins an entitlement for two years of professional development. This entitlement is designed to support ECTs to develop their knowledge of teaching and learning and to practise and reflect on putting this into practice. In practical terms, it means that every ECT needs a subject mentor who they meet with regularly and their school has to decide how it delivers the ECF, with most choosing one of the government-approved providers. Through this scheme, ECTs participate in online training, facilitated sessions and in-school mentoring. Their progress is reviewed and if successful, at the end of the two years, they are fully qualified.
Is the Early career framework working?
Anecdotally, I have heard mixed views on both the experience and the impact of the ECF. For example, physics ECT Rachael Laming told me that, ‘My mentor is extremely supportive and is happy to answer any questions I have.’ Chemistry ECT, Kayleigh Angell explained, ‘It is pretty cohesive with initial teacher training (ITT) and at the moment feels quite repetitive of it. I would like it to expand a little on the CCF (Core content framework).’
The framework should ‘offer a menu approach to meet the individual needs of new teachers’
In addition, there has been an impact on mentoring capacities in schools for trainee teachers in shortage subjects. As Sarah Poore, science ITT lead at the University of Brighton explains, ‘We have noticed that a number of schools do not have the capacity to mentor ITT trainees and are reluctantly unable to offer placements. Science mentors being required for ECT mentoring leaves a gap in the department.’
At the Institute of Physics (IOP), strategic lead for teacher recruitment and retraining, Chris Shepherd brought together experts in this field to review the latest findings of an evaluation of the ECF and to develop a strategy to help improve the framework for new teachers. I spoke to some of the experts to get their views.
Professional perspectives on the ECF
Chris Shepherd’s main concern is that the ECF is too generic and he argues for at least 50% subject-specific content. Recently, the IOP led a pilot project, co-funded by Gatsby, that provided physics ECTs with additional subject specialism support, and evaluated by Emily Perry from Sheffield Hallam University’s Institute of Education Centre for Research and Knowledge Exchange.
All the professionals I spoke to found it hard to describe the clear benefits of the current ECF, simply acknowledging that they welcomed considered, structured and funded support for ECTs. Mark Jordan, head of education at the RSC, summarised this, saying ‘the teaching profession deserves this level of support, but the model needs tuning to better support the individual needs of ECTs’. And indeed, the ECF is currently criticised for being content heavy, inflexible and missing components of teacher development.
I asked Emily Perry to describe the ideal provision, and she identified three features of effective professional development:
- Personalised: ECTs would benefit from auditing their skills and areas for development at the start.
- Authentic: The outcomes of the audit could be used to develop the ECT, informed by their needs and those of the school or college.
- Contextualised: A mixture of generic and subject-specific training that allows contextualisation of the skills in practice; in secondary, this means within subject specialism.
I asked Emily Perry to describe the ideal provision, and she identified three features of effective professional development. Firstly, it should be personalised, meaning ECTs would benefit from auditing their skills and areas for development at the start. Secondly, it needs to be authentic, using the outcomes of the audit to develop the ECT, informed by both their needs and those of the school or college. Thirdly, the PD should be contextualised, featuring a mix of generic and subject-specific training that allows contextualisation of the skills in practice; in secondary, this means within subject specialism.
Chris recalled how he valued having subject-specific training when he was an NQT, specifically having one-to-one support with the use and teaching of practical work within his specialism. Although this still goes on, it is patchy and the ECF would benefit from mandating this as part of its provision.
As I was gathering these opinions, I learned that several of the government-funded ECF providers received outstanding grades from Ofsted for their ECF schemes. However, around the same time a report from Gatsby and Teacher Tapp raised questions about the provision and effectiveness of the ECF.
As I was gathering these opinions, I learned that several of the government-funded ECF providers received outstanding grades from Ofsted for their ECF schemes. However, around the same time a report from Gatsby and Teacher Tapp (bit.ly/3IKtU74) raised questions about the provision and effectiveness of the ECF.
What next for the Early career framework?
Some ECTs are having a very positive experience and feel their mentors were a lifeline through the first year. However, at its worst the ECF is considered time consuming, meaningless and repetitive of ITT … and sometimes it’s the very thing that leads them to quit. As Teacher Tapp’s Becky Allen concludes in her analysis, better is not necessarily good enough. ‘Providing new teachers with enjoyable training experiences that contribute to their identity as educators should be one of the framework’s goals,’ she says.
Some ECTs are having a very positive experience and feel their mentors were a lifeline through the first year. However, at its worst the ECF is considered time consuming, meaningless and repetitive of ITT already experienced by new ECTs … and sometimes the very thing leading them to quit. As Teacher Tapp’s Becky Allen concludes in her analysis (bit.ly/493KPwq), better is not necessarily good enough. ‘Providing new teachers with enjoyable training experiences that contribute to their identity as educators should be one of the framework’s goals,’ she says.
The ECF initiative has been heralded by the DfE as good support for ECTs as England has faced increasing government control and scrutiny of all aspects of education over the past decade. I contacted colleagues in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales for their perspectives on England’s ECF. Many hadn’t heard of it but were interested to know more. Wales is currently implementing its own Newly qualified teacher support programme and colleagues in Northern Ireland have established their own Learning leaders strategy. Colin McGill, a lecturer in teacher education at Edinburgh Napier University, likes the more specific guidance offered to novice teachers by the English ECF. However, he (along with others) suggests that instead of the generic programme, the framework should ‘offer a menu approach to meet the individual needs of new teachers’.
New teachers need support, but there is a mismatch between what the DfE is providing, what the research evidence shows is needed and the call from learned societies to include significantly more subject-specific provision. It seems that ECF programmes provide ECTs with generic input, rather than offering personalised, authentic and contextualised experiences. The DfE has invested money in this programme, and it continues to review and improve the provision (outcomes of the January 2024 review take effect in September 2025). I only hope that it listens to the learned societies and teacher development professionals to make the ECF as effective as possible and ultimately keep more teachers teaching for longer.
No comments yet