Teacher supply: responsibilities, evidence and follow-up

Improvement of teacher supply should begin with a defined problem, a credible account of its causes and a measure capable of showing whether the response has worked.

Application to teacher supply

Application to teacher supply depends on evidence from the relevant jurisdiction or institution.

In the context of teacher supply, the 2013/4 Education for All Global Monitoring Report, Teaching and Learning: Achieving Quality for All, places teaching quality and equitable learning at the centre of the post-2015 discussion. It links teacher preparation, deployment, support and working conditions with learner outcomes. Workforce indicators should consequently be interpreted alongside evidence of classroom practice, access to qualified teachers and differences between locations and learner groups.

When examining teacher supply, the applicable expectation should be capable of consistent application.

Review of teacher supply should follow a stated and reproducible method. For teacher supply, effectiveness is the demonstrated change in the condition the action was intended to address. Across the defined scope, completion of training, publication of guidance or installation of a system is an output and should not be reported as an outcome without further evidence.

Assurance of teacher supply should draw on more than one form of evidence. Useful records include induction and professional learning participation, retention and continuity indicators, workforce plans and vacancy information, observation and learner feedback, and qualification and competence records. For teacher supply, evidence of effectiveness should represent the declared scope, including adverse and exceptional cases.

Controls for teacher supply

For teacher supply, education quality depends on sufficient numbers of competent staff who are prepared, supported and assigned work they can perform effectively.

Risk assessment of corrective action should give particular attention to vacancies or turnover affecting continuity, weak evaluation of teaching support, and deployment unrelated to learner need. A provider should also consider use of staff outside their competence and professional learning disconnected from practice. For teacher supply, stronger controls are required where learners may not detect an error or where later correction cannot restore the lost opportunity.

• Maintain continuity arrangements.
• Forecast workforce need.
• Evaluate professional learning in practice.
• Prioritise support where learner need is greatest.
• Verify competence before assignment, identifying the accountable function and affected scope.

Review of teacher supply

Review of the intended improvement should set a baseline and success measure before intervention, define the review period, compare the result with the intended outcome and examine adverse or unequal effects.

The improvement record for the intended improvement should contain the verified problem, affected scope, immediate containment, causal analysis, selected intervention, accountable owner, resources, milestones and effectiveness measure. In reviewing teacher supply, unfinished work and remaining exposure should be reported rather than absorbed into a general statement of progress.

Conclusions concerning the corrective action require careful treatment of scope and evidential limits. For teacher supply, qualifications and participation in training are inputs. Across the defined scope, a finding should not be separated from limitations capable of changing how it is understood or applied.

For teacher supply, accountability and effective correction both depend on a record that can be followed from evidence to decision. For the corrective action, the responsible body should be able to identify the evidence considered, the judgement made, the person or body authorised to make it and the action that followed.

Implications for teacher supply

Assessment of corrective action should reconcile more than one source of evidence and control.