Sets out responsibilities, evidence and follow-up as an evidence-led approach to teacher supply, covering responsibility, outcome evidence and sustained effect.
The policy and evidence context for teacher supply has been materially shaped by the global teacher and quality priorities. 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.
Improvement objective and baseline
The stated reference is the global teacher and quality priorities. Application to teacher supply depends on evidence from the relevant jurisdiction or institution. Decision-makers should state which matters are evidenced, which express policy and which require authorised judgement.
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. A complete improvement record should define the baseline, affected scope, causal hypothesis, responsible owner, resources, milestones and measures of effectiveness. Operational definitions should be precise enough to support consistent consequential decisions and explain justified variation.
Review of the relevant practice should be based on a stated method rather than general assurance. As regards teacher supply, effectiveness is the demonstrated change in the condition the action was intended to address. Within the scope under review, 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 the relevant practice 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 and accountable action
For teacher supply, education quality depends on sufficient numbers of competent staff who are prepared, supported and assigned work they can perform effectively. Review should cover the stages at which learners receive information, provision, assessment, support and remedy.
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.
Evidence of effect
The review method for teacher supply should be reproducible. 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. Continue monitoring long enough to determine whether the improvement is sustained. Working papers should allow another competent reviewer to understand the evidence, judgement and treatment of material exceptions.
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. Reporting should distinguish work performed from the outcome demonstrated after implementation. 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. In work concerning teacher supply, qualifications and participation in training are inputs. Methods should be proportionate to the significance and recurrence of the problem; low-risk local issues and systemic learner-protection failures require different levels of control. Within the scope under review, 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. Historical decisions concerning teacher supply should be assessed against the information then available, with later amendments separately dated and explained.
Sustaining improvement
For teacher supply, governing bodies should receive a concise account of the intended result, affected scope, principal risks, evidence limitations and unresolved exceptions. An action may be complete while the underlying condition remains, and the two determinations should be recorded separately.
Assessment of corrective action should reconcile more than one source of evidence and control. A conclusion concerning teacher supply should be revised when stronger evidence materially changes the assessment of implementation, outcome or risk.