The qualifications of English and mathematics · PDF fileThe qualifications of English and mathematics ... of the total number of English and mathematics teachers in England in

The qualifications of English and

mathematics teachers

Report prepared for the Education and Training Foundation (ETF)

September 2014

2

Contents

Executive Summary 4

1 Introduction 6

2 Data and Methodology 7

3 Findings 9

3.1 Qualificationsbyagegroup(teachersofmathematics) 11

3.2 Qualificationsbyinstitutiontype 11

3.3 ThelinkbetweenqualificationandthelevelofmathematicsandEnglishtaught 14

3.4 Reportedconfidenceofmathematicsteachers 16

4 Conclusions 20

Annexe 22

3

Figures and TablesFigure 1. International comparison of adult numeracy 10

Figure2.Subjectqualificationbyagegroup(teachersofmathematics) 11

Figure3.Subjectqualificationofteachersofmathematics 12

Figure4.SubjectqualificationofteachersofEnglish 12

Figure5.Combinedevidenceonteachers’qualification(mathematics) 13

Figure6.Subjectqualificationbylevelofmathematicstaught 14

Figure7.SubjectqualificationbylevelofEnglishtaught 14

Figure8.SubjectqualificationofteachersteachingGCSEmathematics 15

Figure 9. Length of experience 16

Figure10.Responsestostatementsrelatedtoteachers’confidence 17

Figure11.Responsestostatementsthatcouldindicatelackofconfidence 18

Figure12.Answerstostatement:“Ifeeltotallyconfidentinteachingallelementsof GCSEHigherLevelMathematics”bylevelofachievedsubjectqualification 19

Figure13.Answerstostatement:“Ifeeltotallyconfidentinteachingallelementsof GCSEHigherLevelMathematics”bylevelofachievedsubjectqualification 23

Figure 14. Answers to statement: “I can deal with most questions asked by students at thislevelbutsometimesneedmoretime”bylevelofachievedsubjectqualification 23

Figure 15. Answers to statement: “I can readily link together a number of elements of Mathematicstosolveproblems”bylevelofachievedsubjectqualification 24

Figure16.Answerstostatement:“Ienjoybeingchallengedbystudentsaskingdifficult questionsaboutotherareasthanthecurrenttopic”bylevelofachievedsubjectqualification 24

Figure17.Answerstostatement:“ItrytosticktothetopicswhereIammoreconfident” bylevelofachievedsubjectqualification 25

Figure18.Answerstostatement:“Ifeelthreatenedwhenstudentsareaskingdifficult questions”bylevelofachievedsubjectqualification 26

Figure19.Answerstostatement:“Ilackconfidenceinteachinganyaspectofthesubject” bylevelofachievedsubjectqualification 26

Table 1. Summary statistics (sample sizes) 7

Table 2. Representativeness of data by region (proportion of teachers) 8

Table3.GCSEMathsAnalysisdatabyrole 22

Table4.RepresentativenessoftheGCSEMathsAnalysisdatabygender 22

4

Executive summaryFrontier Economics was commissioned by the Education and Training Foundation (ETF) to carry out ananalysisofexistingsurveyevidenceonthesubjectqualificationsofteachersinfurthereducation(FE) colleges in England. The purpose of this research is to add to and expand the evidence base around teachers’subjectqualifications,focusingonEnglishandmathematicsteachersinparticular.Thiscanhelp identify training needs in the sector and inform workforce planning.

For this analysis data from two surveys was used:

• StrategicConsultation:MathematicsandEnglishSurvey(“StrategicConsultationSurvey”)conductedby CUREE (Centre for the Use of Research & Evidence in Education) and emCETT (The East Midlands Centre for Excellence in Teacher Training); and

• GCSEMathsTrainingNeedsAnalysis(“GCSEMathsAnalysis”)conductedbyHOSTPolicyResearchfor the Education and Training Foundation to inform programmes focused on improving the teaching ofGCSEmathematicstolearnersaged16-18.

The survey datasets cover only a very small fraction of the teacher workforce (approximately 1.6%1) withsamplesizesrangingfrom231to246respondents,sothefindingsandconclusionspresentedinthispapershouldbeinterpretedinthiscontext.Further,smallsamplesizesconsiderablylimitourabilitytoconductindepthanalysesofsubjectqualificationsamongdifferentsub-groupsoftheFEteacherpopulation.Asaresult,thefindingswepresentarerelativelyhigh-level.

Thekeyfindingsfromtheanalysisare:

• Theyoungestteachers(34andyounger)are,onaverage,theleastqualified.Thismaybeatoddswiththeincreasingmarketneedforhigh-qualityteachersabletodelivereffectivelearningatahighlevel.

• ThesubjectqualificationsofteachersatFEcollegesaregenerallyhigherthanthoseofteachersinother institutions.

• Teacherstypicallyhavesubjectqualificationsatleastonelevelabovetheleveltheyteach.However,basedonthedatafromtheStrategicConsultationSurvey,12%ofthoseteachingGCSEmathematicsand6%ofthoseteachingGCSEEnglishonlyhavehighestqualificationstothesameleveltaught.Moreover,basedonthedatafromGCSEMathsAnalysis,thereisevidencethatsometeachers(9%)teachingattheGCSEmathematicslevelpossessonlyfunctionalorbasicskillsLevel2qualifications.Thisindicatesthatinsomeinstancesteachersmaylackadequatequalificationwithrespecttothelevel they teach.

• Alargeproportionofteacherslackconfidencetoteachdifferentaspectsofmathematicswhichcouldaffectstudentsandtheirabilitytolearneffectively.Specifically,aconsiderableproportionofteachers(43%)lackconfidenceinteachingallelementsofGCSEhigherlevelmathematics.Moreover,someteachers(16%)reporteddifficultiesindealingwithquestionsaskedbystudents,amongotherthings.

• Thereisapositivelinkinmathematicsbetweenteachers’subjectqualificationsandconfidence.Teacherswithhighersubjectqualificationshavemoreconfidenceintheirabilitytodeliverlearningeffectively.

Anumberofconclusionscanbedrawnfromtheanalysisandfindingspresentedinthisreport.

• ThereisevidencethatinsomecasesteachersfacedifficultiesindeliveringlearninginmathematicsandEnglish,soprovidingfurthersupporttoteacherswhoexperiencedifficultiesinteachingisappropriate.

1 Based on Frontier Economics estimates of the total number of English and mathematics teachers in England in “Further Education Workforce Data for England:Analysisofthe2012-2013StaffIndividualisedRecordData”,2014

5

• Thedifficultiesfacedbyteacherscouldbedrivenbyalackofappropriatesubjectqualificationneeded to teach at certain levels. Educational institutions need to ensure that they allocate teaching responsibilities within their organisations adequately. The evidence generally indicates that it is preferableforteacherstohavesubjectqualificationswhichareatleastonelevelabovethelevelat which they teach. This is supported both by the fact that teachers with relatively lower subject qualificationsareonaveragelessconfidentinprovidingeffectivelearning,andbytheviewsofnewlyqualifiedteachersthemselves.

• Supportforteacherscanbetargetedtothegroupsthatmostneedit.Ouranalysisshowsthatyoungerteachersareonaveragelessqualified(and,bydefinition,alsoonaveragelessexperienced).Itmayalso be worthwhile examining what the incentives are for teachers to acquire additional subject qualificationsandhowtheseincentivescouldbefurtherenhanced.

Thefindingsandconclusionspresentedinthispapershouldbeinterpretedwithcare,astheyarebasedonsurveydatawithsmallsamplesizes.Thislimitstheabilitytoexploresubjectqualificationsindepthamongdifferentteachersub-groups.Historically,informationonteacherqualificationswascollectedaspartoftheStaffIndividualisedRecord(SIR)datareturnwhichcoversthewholeFEsector.Howeverthis data requirement was removed recently in an attempt to streamline the data collection process. Goingforward,itwillbeimportanttoconsiderdifferentoptionsforgatheringmorecomprehensivedataonteacherqualifications.Thiscouldbedoneindifferentways,suchasexpandingsurveyslookingatthesubjectqualificationsoftheteachingworkforce,orfindingnewwaystore-integrateteacherqualificationsinformationintotheSIRdatareturninawaywhichislessburdensomeforcolleges(requiringaggregateratherthanindividualdataforexample).Ultimately,thiswouldensureathoroughunderstanding of the FE teacher landscape and allow policy makers to base decisions and actions on robust and comprehensive data.

6

1. IntroductionFrontier Economics was commissioned by the Education and Training Foundation (ETF) to carry out ananalysisofexistingsurveyevidenceonthesubjectqualificationsofteachersinfurthereducation(FE) colleges in England. The purpose of this research is to add to and expand the evidence base around teachers’subjectqualifications,focusingonEnglishandmathematicsteachersinparticular.Thiscanhelp identify training needs in the sector and inform workforce planning.

Thisreportprovidesadescriptiveaccountofthequalificationsofteachingstaff,drawingoninformationfromtwosurveys,eachwithslightlyover200respondents.

The report is structured as follows:

• First,weprovideanoverviewofthedataandmethodologyusedintheanalysis.

• Second,wediscussthesubjectqualificationsofEnglishandmathematicsteachersandhowtheycorrespond to characteristics such as age and educational institution.

• Third,weprovideananalysisofthelinkbetweenteachers’subjectqualificationsandthelevelofEnglish and mathematics taught.

• Fourth,weexplorethereportedconfidenceofteachersofmathematicsandtherelationshipbetweenconfidenceandteachers’qualificationsandexperience.

• Finally,weprovideasummaryofourkeyfindingsandconclusionsandwhattheyimplyforworkforcesupport going forward.

7

2. Data and MethodologyTheanalysisinthisreportisbasedondatafromtwosurveysfocusedonteachersinthepost-16educationsector.Specifically:

• StrategicConsultation:MathematicsandEnglishSurvey(“StrategicConsultationSurvey”)conductedby CUREE (Centre for the Use of Research & Evidence in Education) and emCETT (The East Midlands Centre for Excellence in Teacher Training). The Strategic Consultation Survey covers teachersofbothmathematicsandEnglishteachingeitheratLevel1,Level2(includingGCSE),Level3,oratpreentryandentrylevel.Thesurveyprovidesdataonteachers’highestsubjectqualification,thelevelofmathematicsorEnglishtaughtandtheirconfidenceinteachingmathematicsorEnglish.

• GCSEMathsTrainingNeedsAnalysis(“GCSEMathsAnalysis”)conductedbyHOSTPolicyResearchfor the Education and Training Foundation to inform programmes focused on improving the teaching ofGCSEmathematicstolearnersaged16-18.TheGCSEMathsAnalysiscoversonlymathematicsteachers,focusingparticularlyonthoseteachingGCSEmathematicsinEngland.Thesurveyholdsinformationonteachercharacteristics(e.g.placeofwork,ageorregion),subjectqualificationsandexperience,aswellaslevelofmathematicstaught.

Bothdatasetsarebasedoninternetsurveysofteachers.AccordingtotheGCSEMathsAnalysisreport,theGCSEMathsAnalysisdataarebasedonane-surveyofa“representativesampleofprovidersfromtheeducationandtrainingsector”2. The link to the questionnaire was circulated to teachers that participatedinasix-dayMathematicsEnhancementProgramme3. A link to the survey was also placed insocialmediatoencourageteachersinthepost-16educationsectortotakepartinthissurvey.

TheStrategicConsultationSurveyisalsobasedonane-surveytargetingthosethatteachorsupportlearners in English and mathematics.

Weanalyseeachofthesurveys,takingintoaccountrespectivedifferencesinresearchfocusandrespondents.Wherepossible,wealsoprovideacombinedanalysisofthetwosurveys.Thecombinedanalysis(“meta-analysis”)4isusefulasitincreasesthesamplesize,thusenhancingtherobustnessofconclusionsdrawnfromthe analysis. Table 1 provides a summary of the respective sample sizes of each survey.

Table 1. Summary statistics (sample sizes)

Survey Total respondents

FE colleges

Otherinstitutions

Teachers of maths

Teachers of English

GCSEMathsAnalysis 246 157 89 246 N/AStrategic Consultation Survey

231 61 107 149 129

Source:GCSEMathsAnalysis,StrategicConsultationSurveyNote1:OtherinstitutionscoveredintheGCSEMathsAnalysisinclude(respectivenumberofrespondentsinbrackets):Communitylearningandskillsproviders(30),Sixthformcolleges(5),Offenderlearningcentres(5),Independenttrainingproviders(38)andotherinstitutions(7).OtherinstitutionscoveredintheStrategicConsultationSurveyinclude:Adultandcommunitylearningcentres(52),Independenttrainingprovidersdeliveringvocationalqualifications(18),SpecialistCollegesforlearnerswithlearningdifficulties/disabilities(11),Offenderlearningcentres(7)andotherinstitutions(19).

Note2:ThetotalnumberofrespondentsaspertheStrategicConsultationSurveydoesnotcorrespondtothesumofteachersatFEcolleges and other institutions because a considerable proportion of respondents did not provide an answer to the question about where theywork.Thisdataproblem(thatnotallanswersarereportedbyallrespondents)arisesthroughoutthesurveys.Inthisrespect,whereverfiguresarereportedwerelyonlyontheansweredsurveyquestionsandprovidetherespectivesamplesizesinbrackets.

2 GCSEMathsAnalysis(2014,p.3)

3 Thisprogrammewasdevelopedandco-fundedbytheEducationandTrainingFoundationandaimedatupskillingtheteachers’workforce.

4 Pleasenotethatheretheterm“meta-analysis”meanssimplycomparingtheresultsfromthetwosurveys.

•

8

Coverage is in general better for mathematics teachers with 149 respondents in the Strategic ConsultationSurveyand246respondentsintheGCSEMathsAnalysis.ThetotalnumberofEnglishteachers surveyed is 129. It is also worth noting that almost 40% of the teachers covered by the StrategicConsultationSurveyteachbothEnglishandmathematics.Giventherelativelysmallsamplesitisimportanttostressthatthisanalysisissomewhatlimitedandthefindingsandconclusionsshouldtherefore be treated with caution.

Thesurveyscontainonlyalimitedamountofinformationonteacherdemographicsandlocation,soit is not possible to assess in detail how the characteristics of respondents compare to the sector as a whole.TheGCSEMathsAnalysisdoesprovideinformationonthegeographicalregionscovedinthesurvey.BasedonthisandcomparingittotheStaffIndividualisedRecord2012/13data(“SIRdata”),inTable2wecanseethatallregionsinEnglandarerepresentedinthesurvey,althoughtheSouthEastandSouthWestregionsareunder-presentedwhileLondonandtheNorthEastregionareover-presented in the sample.

Table 2. Representativeness of data by region (proportion of teachers)

Region SIR data GCSEMathsAnalysis

(all respondents)

GCSEMathsAnalysis (FE

colleges only)Total number of teachers across all regions 93,320 246 157GreaterLondon 11.3% 17.2% 16.1%South West 9.4% 7.1% 7.1%NorthWest 17.8% 15.9% 14.2%West Midlands 11.2% 10.5% 10.3%East Midlands 9.5% 11.7% 11.6%East of England 9.4% 7.5% 7.1%South East 16.6% 7.1% 7.1%YorkshireandHumber 10.3% 8.4% 11.0%NorthEast 4.5% 14.6% 15.5%

Source:GCSEMathsAnalysis,SIRdataNote:SIRdatareportsonthecharacteristicsoftheFEworkforceincludinginformationoncollegelocation.The2012/13SIRdatasetcontains up to date information on one third of all FE colleges in England.

TheGCSEMathsAnalysisalsoprovidesinformationonteachers’genderandrolewhichwesummariseintheAnnex.Thisshowsthat,relativetothepopulationofteachers,surveyrespondentsareslightlymore likely to be female.

9

3. FindingsThere is evidence that England does not perform particularly well internationally in terms of adult skills.ArecentinternationalsurveyofskillscarriedoutbytheOECD5 found that numeracy amongst adultsinEnglandandNorthernIrelandisbelowtheOECDaverage(seeFigure1).Theresultisworseforyoungadults(aged16-24)whereEnglandandNorthernIrelandscoreconsiderablybelowtheOECDaverage.Furthermore,theOECDworkfindsthatincreasingnumeracyandliteracyisassociatedwithbetter employment prospects.

ThissectiondiscussesthesubjectqualificationsofteachersofEnglishandmathematicsandhowthesevarywithrespecttoage,educationalinstitutionandsubjecttaught.Thisishelpfultobetterunderstandthe workforce and underlying market developments and to target policy in relation to upskilling teachers more effectively.

Understandingteachers’subjectqualificationsisimportantfortworeasons:

• Teachers’subjectqualificationsmaybecorrelatedwiththequalityofteachingandtheabilityof teachers to deliver learning effectively. According to research published by DfE6bothPGCE(PostgraduateCertificateinEducation)studentsandnewlyqualifiedteachersareoftheviewthatat least one level of subject knowledge above the level they would be expected to teach is needed in ordertodeliverteachingeffectively.Moreover,theystatedthatthiswouldenablethemtohavemoreconfidenceinteaching.

• Teacher quality may in turn affect learner outcomes7whichcanhavelong-lastingimplicationsforgraduate employability and the wider UK economy8.

5 “OECDSkillsOutlook2013:FirstResultsfromtheSurveyofAdultSkills”,2013

6 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224705/DFE-RR301A.pdf

7 ForexampleUnanmaetal.(2013)findthatteachers’professionalqualificationsinfluencestudentacademicachievementinChemistry.Clearlyteacherqualityisrelatednotonlytoqualificationsbutalsotoexperience.

8 Achievingagoodlevelinmathematicsisconsideredasastrongpredictorofsuccessforyoungadults(GCSEMathsAnalysis,2014).Moreover,employersconsiderthatweaknessesinliteracyandnumeracyareobstaclestodevelopingspecificwork-relatedskillsinyoungpeople(Learningtogrow:whatemployersneedfromeducationandskills,CBIEducationandSkillsSurvey,2012).Inaddition,forexample,anevidencereviewofemployersandtherecruitmentofyoungpeople(16-18yearsolds)byChrisHasluckandJosieArmitage(2011)reads:“Negativeperceptionssee16-18yearsoldsasunabletomakeaproductivecontributionfromthestartoftheiremployment(perhapsbecauseofalackofbasicskills)[…]”.

10

Figure 1. International comparison of adult numeracy

0 80 60 40 20 0

Numeracy pro�ciency among adultsPercentage of 16-65 year olds scoring at each pro�ciency level in numeracy

20 40 60 80 100

Japan

Finland

Sweden

Netherlands

Norway

Denmark

Slovak Republic

Flanders (Belgium)

Czech Republic

Austria

Germany

Estonia

Average

Australia

Canada

Korea

England/N. Ireland (UK)

Poland

France

Ireland

Cyprus

United States

Italy

Spain

Missing

Level 4/5

Level 3

Level 2

Level 1

Below Level 1

Source:OECD[SkillsOutlook,2013]

11

3.1 Qualifications by age group (teachers of mathematics)

Figure2showshowteachers’subjectqualificationsvarywithrespecttoageamongmathematicsteachers.Thedatashowthatyoungerteachers(34andyounger)areonaveragelessqualifiedthanolderteachers.Almostthreequarters(72%)ofteachersaged34oryoungerhaveGCSE(orbelow)astheirhighestsubjectqualification.Oneinthreeteachersagedover55hasadegreeinmathematics(oranotherdegreewithsignificantmathematicalcontent),comparedwithoneintenteachersaged34oryounger.Thiscouldbeanindicationthatthemathematicsqualificationsofteachersaredecreasingovertime.OntheotherhanditmaysimplybethatolderteacherswithbetterqualificationsoptintoFEteachinglater,butthatthosewithlongertenurenecessarilybetterqualified.Thelackofdatalimitsourability to carry out more detailed sub group analysis which would shed more light on this issue.

Figure 2. Subject qualification by age group (teachers of mathematics)

0

20

40

60

80

100Other quali�cation

Other degree withsigni�cant mathematical content

Degree in Mathematics

A Level or equivalent

GCSE A*-C or equivalent

Functional/Adult Basic Skills Level 2

55 and older 45 to 5435 to 4434 andyounger

All teachers

Source:GCSEMathsAnalysis(n=234)Note:Threeteachersinthe45to54groupindicatedthattheypossess‘otherqualification’(namely,HNCmechanicalengineering,AssociationofTaxationTechnicians,Otherdegreewithsomemathematicalcontent).

3.2 Qualifications by institution type

Figure3andFigure4provideabreakdownofthehighestsubjectqualificationsofteachersofmathematicsandEnglishrespectively,brokendownbyinstitutiontype(FECollegeorother).The mostcommonsubjectqualificationsformathematicsteachersareGCSE(Level2)orgraduatedegree(Level 5).

ThefiguresalsoindicatethatteachersatFEcollegeshave,onaverage,highersubjectqualificationsthanteachersinotherinstitutions.Thisresultis,however,basedononlyasmallsamplesizeandthereforeshould be interpreted in this context.

Further,Englishteachersareingeneralmorequalifiedthanteachersofmathematics.Thisisparticularly true for teachers at FE colleges.9

9 TheproportionofteachersofmathematicswhohaveCertificate/Level4oraboveis55.8%atFEcollegesascomparedtoonly39.4%atotherinstitutions.TheproportionofEnglishteacherswithEnglishteachersCertificate/Level4qualificationoraboveis63.2%atFEcollegesand53.2%atotherinstitutions.

12

Figure 3. Subject qualification of teachers of mathematics

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Other institutions

FE college

Post GraduateLevels 6-8

Graduate/DegreeLevel 5

Certi�cate/DiplomaLevel 4

A LevelLevel 3

GCSE Level 2

Source: Strategic Consultation Survey (n=119)10

Figure 4. Subject qualification of teachers of English

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Other institutions

FE college

Post GraduateLevels 6-8

Graduate/DegreeLevel 5

Certi�cate/DiplomaLevel 4

A LevelLevel 3

GCSE Level 2

Source: Strategic Consultation Survey (n=101)

10 It is important to note that five teachers of mathematics (4% of the teachers covered) that fully completed the survey did not report any relevant qualification that would be mathematics specific. Four out of the five teachers have, however, reported some other qualification (namely, a qualification in English at level 4 and above, Post-Graduate Certificate in Education or Certificate in Post Compulsory education).

13

Figure 5 provides a “meta-analysis” of the combined evidence from the two surveys to increase the underlying sample size to inform on the qualification of teachers of mathematics at FE colleges and other institutions.

Figure 5. Combined evidence on teachers’ qualification (mathematics)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Quali�cation (CUREE, HOST) - FE colleges

Quali�cation (CUREE, HOST) - overall

Other degreewith signi�cantmathematical

content

Degree inMathematics(Graduate or

Post Graduate)

Certi�cate orDiplomaLevel 4

A Level(or Level 3

or equivalent)

Level 2(Basic skills,

GCSE)

Source: Strategic Consultation Survey and GCSE Maths Analysis (n=354 for the qualification of all teachers across all the institutions, n=125 for the qualification of teachers at FE colleges).

14

3.3 The link between qualification and the level of mathematics and English taught

ThissectionexplorestheavailableevidenceonthesubjectqualificationsofEnglishandmathematicsteachers,examininghowteachers’subjectqualificationsinEnglandrelatetothelevelofEnglishandmathematics taught.

Figure6andFigure7explorethelinkbetweenteachers’subjectqualificationsandthelevelofmathematics and English taught.

Figure 6. Subject qualification by level of mathematics taught

0

20

40

60

80

100No relevant quali�cation reported

Post Graduate Levels 6-8

Graduate / Degree Level 5

Certi�cate / Diploma Level 4

A Level / Level 3

GCSE / Level 2

MathsLevel 3

MathsGCSE

MathsLevel 1 and 2

MathsPre Entry and

Entry Level

Source:StrategicConsultationSurvey(n=113)

Figure 7. Subject qualification by level of English taught

0

20

40

60

80

100No relevant quali�cation reported

Post Graduate Levels 6-8

Graduate / Degree Level 5

Certi�cate / Diploma Level 4

A Level / Level 3

GCSE / Level 2

English Level 3

English GCSE

English Level 1 and 2

English Pre Entry and

Entry Level

Source:StrategicConsultationSurvey(n=95)

15

Analysis of the Strategic Consultation Survey data shows that the majority of English and mathematics teacherspossesssubjectqualificationswhichareatleastonelevelabovetherespectiveleveltheyteach.Nevertheless,itisworthnotingthatalmost12%ofteachersteachingGCSEmathematicsand6%ofteachersteachingGCSEEnglishpossessonlyGCSEorLevel2subjectqualifications.Inaddition,11%ofteachersteachingEnglishatLevel3haveonlyA-LevelorLevel3subjectqualifications.

TheGCSEMathsAnalysisdata(focusingonGCSEmathematicsteachers)revealsasimilarpicture.AsshowninFigure8,thereisevidencethatanon-negligibleproportionofteachers(9%)teachingGCSEmathematicshaveonlyafunctionalorbasicskillsLevel2subjectqualification.ThisresultisslightlybetterforFEcollegeswhere8%ofteachersteachingGCSEmathematicsholdonlyafunctionalorbasicskillsLevel2subjectqualification.Nevertheless,itisimportanttonotethattheresultsandcomparisonsasperFigure8arebasedonverysmallsamplesizeofteachersteachingGCSEmathematics. Another aspect of the data worth pointing out is that 4% of the mathematics teachers and 2%oftheEnglishteachersdidnotreportanyrelevantsubjectqualificationinrelationtothespecificsubject taught (English or mathematics). These teachers have however reported that they possess a post-16teachingqualification.11

Figure 8. Subject qualification of teachers teaching GCSE mathematics

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35Teachers teaching GCSE maths (FE colleges)

Teachers teaching GCSE maths (all teachers)

Other degree with signi�cant

mathematical content


Certi�cate/Diploma

Level 4


GCSE A*-C or

equivalent


Source:GCSEMathsAnalysis(n=67forallteachersteachingGCSEmathematics;n=48forteachersteachingGCSEmathematicsatFEcolleges)

Ofcourse,formalsubjectqualificationsarenotallthatmattersforteachers’abilitytodeliverlearningeffectively.TherelativelyhighincidenceoflowsubjectqualificationsamongGCSEteacherscouldbeinsomecasescompensatedforbyadequatelengthofworkexperience.Indeed,asFigure9shows,thevastmajorityofteachersteachingGCSEmathematicshavesixormoreyearsofexperienceinteaching.Thisanalysisisneverthelessbasedonasampleofonly243teachers.Therefore,inordertodrawrobustconclusions,therespectivesamplesizeofteacherswouldneedtobeincreased.

11 ThetotalavailablesampleofteachersthatteachatleastoneofthefollowinglevelsinmathematicsandEnglish:preentryandentrylevel,Level1and2,GCSEandLevel3is117and97,respectively.

16

Figure 9. Length of experience

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Teaching GCSE maths

Overall answers

More than 10 years6 to 10 years1 to 5 yearsLess than one year

Source:GCSEMathsAnalysis(n=243)

Onthewhole,however,theevidenceinthissectionindicatesthatsomegroupsofteacherscouldbenefitfromsupporttoimprovetheirsubjectqualifications.Giventhesmallsamplesizesandthelackof other covariates it is hard to make clear statements about the characteristics of teachers that are most likelyrelatedtoalackofsuitablequalification,thoughageappearstobeonerelatedfactor.

3.4 Reported confidence of mathematics teachers

Thissectiondiscussestheself-reportedconfidenceofmathematicsteachers.Particularattentionispaidtohowthereportedconfidencevariesbycharacteristicssuchasteachers’subjectqualificationsandthelevel of mathematics taught.

TheGCSEMathsAnalysisaskedteachersofmathematicstoconsiderseveralstatementsrelatedtotheirconfidence,suchashowconfidenttheyareinteachingallelementsofGCSEhigherlevelmathematicsorhowconfidenttheyareindealingwithquestionsaskedbystudents.

Figure 10 summarises teachers’ responses to the statements. The data show that almost half of teachers (43%)lackconfidenceinteachingallelementsofGCSEmathematics12.Moreover,someteachers(16%)lackconfidencethattheycandealwithmostquestionsaskedbystudents.

12 Herewedefinetheproportionofteachersthatlackconfidenceastheproportionofteachersansweringeither“stronglydisagree”or“disagree”tothequestions asked (listed on the horizontal axis).

17

Figure 10. Responses to statements related to teachers’ confidence

0

20

40

60

80

100Strongly disagree (1)

Disagree (2)

Neither agreenor disagree (3)

Agree (4)

Strongly agree (5)

Combinedanswers

related to con�dence

I enjoy beingchallenged by

students askingdi�cult

questionsabout areasother than

the current topic

I can readilylink together

a numberof elements

of Mathematicsto solve

problems

I can deal withmost questions

asked bystudents at

this levelbut sometimes

need moretime

I feel totallycon�dent inteaching allelements ofGCSE Higher

LevelMathematics

Average3.6

Average3.7

Average4.1

Average3.6

Average2.9

Source:GCSEMathsAnalysis(n=226to236dependingonthequestionunderconsideration)Note:Confidenceisrisingwiththeextenttowhichrespondentsagreedtothestipulatedstatements.Theaveragelevelofconfidenceisincreasing if the number approaches number 5 (strongly agree answer).

Figure10alsoprovides,foreachstatement,theaveragelevelofteacherconfidence13 (shown at the topofeachbar).Forinstance,theaveragelevelofconfidencewithrespecttotheabilitytoteachallelementsofGCSEHigherlevelmathematicsis2.9(closetothe“neitheragreenordisagree”answer)andthemostcommonanswerprovidedbyteachersis“disagree”.Thatis,mostcommonlyteacherswoulddisagreewiththestatementthattheyfeeltotallyconfidentinteachingallelementsofGCSEmathematics.Ontheotherhand,Figure11providesanoverviewofanswerstostatementsthatcouldindicatelackofconfidencewithrespecttoteachingvariousaspectsofmathematics(suchasfeelingthreatenedwhenaskeddifficultquestionsbystudents).Thedatashowthat15%ofteachersagreeorstronglyagreewiththestatementthattheyfeelthreatenedwhenaskeddifficultquestionsbystudents.Moreover,33%ofteachersagreeorstronglyagreewiththestatementthattheytrytosticktothetopicswheretheyfeelmostconfident.

13 Here,thelevelofconfidenceisthedegreetowhichteachersagreedwiththestatementsdescribingtheirconfidence.Confidenceishighestifteachersstronglyagreedwiththestipulatedstatementandlowestifteachersstronglydisagreedwithit.Theaveragelevelofconfidenceiscalculatedbyassigningnumericalvaluestoanswers(5iftheteacherstronglyagreed,4iftheteacheragreed,3iftheteacherneitheragreednordisagreed,2iftheteacherdisagreedand1iftheteacherstronglydisagreedwiththequestionasked,indicatingthelowestlevelofconfidence)andtakingasimpleaverageofthereported answers.

18

Figure 11. Responses to statements that could indicate lack of confidence

0

20

40

60

80


Disagree (2)


Agree (4)

Strongly agree (5)

Combined answers I lack con�dencein teaching any

aspect of the subject

I feel threatenedwhen students

are askingdi�cult questions

I try to stick tothe topics where

I am more con�dent

Average3.6

Average4.0

Average3.6

Average3.2

Source:GCSEMathsAnalysis(n=230to235dependingonthequestionunderconsideration)Note:Confidenceisrisingwiththeextenttowhichrespondentsdisagreedtothestipulatedstatements.Theaveragelevelofconfidenceisincreasing if the number approaches number 5 (strongly disagree answer).

Figure11alsoprovides,foreachstatement,theaveragelevelofteacherconfidence14 (shown at the top ofeachbar).Forinstance,theaveragelevelofconfidencewithrespecttothestatement“ItrytosticktothetopicswhereIammoreconfident”is3.2.Thisindicatesthatarelativelyhighproportionofteachersagreedorstronglyagreed(33%)tothestatement,pushingtheaveragelevelofconfidencedown.

Finally,weexplorethelinkbetweenteacherqualificationsandconfidenceinteachingGCSEmathematics.15Thedatashowaclearlinkbetweenteacherconfidenceandteachers’subjectqualificationssuchthatreportedconfidenceincreasesconsiderablywitheducationalattainment.Forexample,asFigure12shows,65%ofteacherswithadegreeinmathematics,and73%ofteacherswith‘otherdegreewithsignificantmathematicalcontent’,agreedorstronglyagreedwiththestatementthattheyfeeltotallyconfidentinteachingallelementsofGCSEHigherlevelmathematics,asopposedtoonly16%ofteacherswithGCSEA-Corequivalentqualification,orascomparedtoonly5%ofteacherswithFunctionalorAdultBasicSkillsLevel2qualifications.

14 Here,thelevelofconfidenceisthedegreetowhichteachersdisagreedtothestatements.Confidenceisthehighestifteachersstronglydisagreedwiththestipulatedstatementandthelowestifteachersstronglyagreedwithit.Theaveragelevelofconfidenceiscalculatedbyassigningnumericalvaluestoanswers(5iftheteacherstronglydisagreed,4iftheteacherdisagreed,3iftheteacherneitheragreednordisagreed,2iftheteacheragreedand1iftheteacherstronglyagreedwiththestatementinquestion,indicatingthelowestlevelofconfidence)andtakingasimpleaverageofthereportedanswers.

15 Weexcludedasmallnumber(3)ofteacherswhoreportedpossessingotherqualificationstoanyofthegroupsshowninthecharts.

19

Figure 12. Answers to statement: “I feel totally confident in teaching all elements of GCSE Higher Level Mathematics” by level of achieved subject qualification

0

20

40

60

80


Disagree (2)


Agree (4)

Strongly agree (5)

Other degree with signi�cant mathematical

content





Source:GCSEMathsAnalysis(n=230to235dependingonthequestionunderconsideration)

Figures 13 to 19 in the Annexe also show the relationship between other questions regarding teacher confidenceandthelevelofsubjectqualifications.Themessageisconsistentthatmorequalifiedteachersfeelmoreconfidentabouttheirabilitytoteachmathematics.Forexample,90%ofteacherswithadegreeinmathematicsand78%ofteachersthatpossessanotherdegreewithsignificantmathematical content disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that they feel threatened whenaskeddifficultquestionsbystudents,asopposedtoonly55%ofteacherswithGCSEA-Corequivalentqualifications,orascomparedtoonly32%ofteacherswithFunctionalorAdultBasicSkillsLevel2qualifications.

Takentogether,thefindingsinthissectionsuggestthatalargenumberofGCSEmathematicsteacherslacktheconfidencerequiredtoteachvariousaspectsofthesubject.Thiscouldbeareflectionofthesubjectqualificationsheldbytheteachers-morequalifiedteachershavehigherconfidenceintheirabilitytoteachthesubjectrelativetoteacherswithlowersubjectqualifications.Itwouldbealsointerestingtoanalyse,forexample,therelationshipbetweenreportedself-confidence,qualificationsandage.However,thelackofsamplesizeinhibitsmoredetailedanalysesofthisnature.

20

4. ConclusionsThisreportpresentsouranalysisoftheavailablesurveyevidenceonthesubjectqualificationsofEnglishandmathematicsteachersinEngland,drawingondatafromtwosurveys.InadditiontodocumentingthesubjectqualificationsofEnglishandmathematicsteachers,weexplorethelinksbetweenteacherqualificationsandthelevelofEnglishormathematicstaught,andteacherconfidenceindeliveringlearning effectively.

Thekeyfindingsfromtheanalysisare:

• Theyoungestteachers(34andyounger)are,onaverage,theleastqualified.Thismaybeatoddswiththeincreasingmarketneedforhigh-qualityteachersabletodelivereffectivelearningatahighlevel.

• ThesubjectqualificationsofteachersatFEcollegesaregenerallyhigherthanthoseofteachersinother institutions.

• Teacherstypicallyhavesubjectqualificationsatleastonelevelabovetheleveltheyteach.However,basedonthedatafromtheStrategicConsultationSurvey,12%ofthoseteachingGCSEmathematicsand6%ofthoseteachingGCSEEnglishonlyhavehighestqualificationstothesameleveltaught.Moreover,basedonthedatafromGCSEMathsAnalysis,thereisevidencethatsometeachers(9%)teachingattheGCSEmathematicslevel,possessonlyfunctionalorbasicskillsLevel2qualifications.Thisindicatesthatinsomeinstancesteachersmaylackadequatequalificationwithrespecttothelevel they teach.

• Aconsiderableproportionofteachers(43%)lackconfidenceinteachingallelementsofGCSEhigherlevelmathematics.Moreover,someteachers(16%)reporteddifficultiesindealingwithquestionsaskedbystudents,amongotherthings.

• Thereisapositivelinkbetweenteachers’subjectqualificationsandconfidence.Teacherswithhighersubjectqualificationshavemoreconfidenceintheirabilitytodeliverlearningeffectively.

Anumberofconclusionscanbedrawnfromtheanalysisandfindingspresentedinthisreport.

• ThereisevidencethatinsomecasesteachersfacedifficultiesindeliveringlearninginmathematicsandEnglish,soprovidingfurthersupporttoteacherswhoexperiencedifficultiesinteachingisappropriate.

• Thedifficultiesfacedbyteacherscouldbedrivenbyalackofappropriatesubjectqualificationsneeded to teach at certain levels. Educational institutions need to ensure that they adequately allocate teaching responsibilities within their organisations. The evidence generally indicates that itispreferableforteacherstohavesubjectqualificationswhichareatleastonelevelabovethelevel at which they teach. This is supported by the fact that teachers with relatively lower subject qualificationareonaveragelessconfidentinprovidingeffectivelearningandtheviewsofnewlyqualifiedteachersthemselves.Thesurveydataindicateapotentialmismatchbetweenthesubjectqualificationsheldbyteachersandthelevelatwhichtheyteachinsomeinstances.

• Supportforteacherscanbetargetedtothegroupsthatmostneedit.Ouranalysisshowsthatyoungerteachersareonaveragelessqualified(andbydefinitionalsoonaveragelessexperienced).Relatedtothispoint,itmaybeworthwhileexaminingwhattheincentivesareforteacherstoacquireadditionalsubjectqualificationsandhowtheseincentivescouldbefurtherenhanced.

21

Finally,wenotethatthefindingsandconclusionspresentedinthispapershouldbeinterpretedwithcare as they are based on survey data covering only a limited proportion of the teacher workforce (samplesizeisslightlyhigherthan200ineachsurvey).Inthepastteacherqualificationsdatawascollected as part of the Staff Individualised Record (SIR) which covers all publicly funded further educationcollegesinEngland.Howeverthisdatarequirementwasremovedrecentlyinanattempttostreamlinethedatacollectionprocess.Goingforward,itwillbeimportanttoconsiderdifferentoptionsforgatheringmorecomprehensivedataonteacherqualifications.Thiscouldbedoneindifferentways,suchasexpandingsurveyslookingatthesubjectqualificationsoftheteachingworkforce,orfindingnewwaystore-integrateteacherqualificationsinformationintotheSIRdatareturninawaywhichislessburdensomeforcolleges(requiringaggregateratherthanindividualdataforexample).Ultimately,this would ensure a thorough understanding of the FE teacher landscape and allow policy makers to base decisions and actions on robust and comprehensive data.

22

AnnexeCharacteristics of survey respondents

Table 3. GCSE Maths Analysis data by role

Teacher’s role GCSEMathsAnalysis (all respondents)

GCSEMathsAnalysis (FE colleges only)

Mathematics teacher 68% 71%Vocational teacher 14% 12%Headofmathematics 4% 5%Other 12% 11%

Source:GCSEMathsAnalysis.Note:Theothercategoryconsistsof29teachersandincludesESOLteachers,functionalskillstutors,studyassistantsandothers.

Table 4. Representativeness of the GCSE Maths Analysis data by gender

Gender SIR data GCSEMathsAnalysis

(all respondents)

GCSEMathsAnalysis

(FE colleges only)Male 45% 34% 38%Female 55% 66% 62%

Source:GCSEMathsAnalysis,SIRdataNote:TheproportionofmalesandfemalesintheSIRdataisbasedoncontractsratherthanindividualsasthesecannotbeidentifiedinthe SIR data.

Reported confidence of teachers

TheGCSEMathsAnalysisaskedteachersofmathematicstoconsidervariousstatementsrelatedtotheirconfidenceandindicatehowwellthesestatementsreflecttheirteachinglevelofconfidence.Specifically,thefollowingstatementsweretested:

• IfeeltotallyconfidentinteachingallelementsofGCSEHigherLevelMathematics.

• I can deal with most questions asked by students at this level but sometimes need more time.

• I can readily link together a number of elements of Mathematics to solve problems.

• Ienjoybeingchallengedbystudentsaskingdifficultquestionsaboutotherareasthanthecurrenttopic.

Teachers could either strongly agree with the statement (this answer would be indicative of high confidence),agree,neitheragreenordisagree,disagreeorstronglydisagree(stronglydisagreeingtothestatementisindicativeofaconsiderablelackofconfidence).

Thefiguresthatfollowsummariseteachers’responseslinkingreportedconfidenceandsubjectqualifications.Theevidenceshowsthatteachersthatholdhigherqualificationsareonaverageconsiderablymoreconfidentthanteacherswithrelativelylowersubjectqualifications.

23

Figure 13. Answers to statement: “I feel totally confident in teaching all elements of GCSE Higher Level Mathematics” by level of achieved subject qualification

0

20

40

60

80


Disagree (2)


Agree (4)

Strongly agree (5)


content






Figure 14. Answers to statement: “I can deal with most questions asked by students at this level but sometimes need more time” by level of achieved subject qualification

0

20

40

60

80


Disagree (2)


Agree (4)

Strongly agree (5)


content






24

Figure 15. Answers to statement: “I can readily link together a number of elements of Mathematics to solve problems” by level of achieved subject qualification

0

20

40

60

80


Disagree (2)


Agree (4)

Strongly agree (5)


content






Figure 16. Answers to statement: “I enjoy being challenged by students asking difficult questions about other areas than the current topic” by level of achieved subject qualification

0

20

40

60

80


Disagree (2)


Agree (4)

Strongly agree (5)


content






25

Reported lack of confidence of teachers

TheGCSEMathsAnalysisaskedteachersofmathematicstoconsidervariousstatementswhichindicateconfidenceorlackthereof.Specifically,thefollowingstatementsweretested:

• ItrytosticktothetopicswhereIammoreconfident.

• Ifeelthreatenedwhenstudentsareaskingdifficultquestions.

• Ilackconfidenceinteachinganyaspectofthesubject.

Teachers could either strongly agree with the statement (this answer would be indicative of a considerablelackofconfidence),agree,neitheragreenordisagree,disagreeorstronglydisagree(indicativeofhighconfidence).

Thefiguresthatfollowsummariseteachers’responseslinkingreportedlackofconfidenceandsubjectqualifications.Theevidenceshowsthatteacherswithlowersubjectqualificationsare,onaverage,lessconfidentthanteacherswithhighersubjectqualifications.

Figure 17. Answers to statement: “I try to stick to the topics where I am more confident” by level of achieved subject qualification

0

20

40

60

80


Disagree (2)


Agree (4)

Strongly agree (5)


content






26

Figure 18. Answers to statement: “I feel threatened when students are asking difficult questions” by level of achieved subject qualification

0

20

40

60

80


Disagree (2)


Agree (4)

Strongly agree (5)


content






Figure 19. Answers to statement: “I lack confidence in teaching any aspect of the subject” by level of achieved subject qualification

0

20

40

60

80


Disagree (2)


Agree (4)

Strongly agree (5)


content






27

FrontierEconomicsLimitedinEuropeisamemberoftheFrontierEconomicsnetwork,whichconsistsofseparatecompaniesbasedinEurope(Brussels,Cologne,London&Madrid)andAustralia(Melbourne&Sydney).Thecompaniesareindependentlyowned,andlegalcommitmentsenteredinto by any one company do not impose any obligations on other companies in the network. All views expressed in this document are the views of Frontier Economics Limited.

FRONTIERECONOMICSEUROPE

BRUSSELS|COLOGNE|LONDON|MADRID

FrontierEconomicsLtd71HighHolbornLondonWC1V6DA

Tel.+44(0)2070317000|Fax.+44(0)2070317001|www.frontier-economics.com

Documents

The qualifications of English and mathematics · PDF fileThe qualifications of English and mathematics ... of the total number of English and mathematics teachers in England in