Strengthening teacher recruitment and retention is a critical challenge facing post-16 education, with high rates of unfilled vacancies in key sectors such as construction and engineering. This has only been exacerbated by a large pay gap between FE and secondary school teachers which is currently at its widest since at least 2010 . As part of its manifesto commitments, the government pledged to deliver 6,500 additional teachers in schools and colleges over the course of this parliament. With the number of 16-18-year-olds set to continue increasing rapidly over this period, assuming some of this growth is picked up by the FE sector, many of these new teachers will be needed in FE. To date, measures announced by the government to support recruitment and retention in the workforce include reforming FE initial teacher education, new programmes to support professionals’ transitions from industry, a range of financial incentives aimed at improving recruitment and/or retention and enhancing professional development opportunities and training.
However, efforts to address barriers to recruitment and retention in FE may be challenged by the complexity and variety of job roles across the sector. Efforts to target support towards particular roles may be more challenging when organisations have more varied staffing structures.
Our new NFER report, funded by the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, explores this by delving into the current structure of the FE workforce drawing on the Further Education Workforce Data Collection (FEWDC). While we refer to the ‘FE workforce’ as a shorthand, we focus on teaching and support staff on fixed-term or permanent contracts working in General FE colleges only.
The current structure of job roles in FE
Our analysis shows there is significant variability in the job roles and sub-roles reported across colleges. For example, less than half of colleges report having trainers (49 per cent), instructors (49 per cent) and expert teachers (39 per cent). These differences were also apparent across sub-job roles. For example, tutors (54 per cent), advanced practitioners (39 per cent) and practitioners (22 per cent) are only reported in a subset of colleges. These differences did not appear to be driven by subject offering across providers. While most settings are likely to require staff who fulfil similar functions, the extent to which colleges report having different roles points to the potential to have more consistency in how job roles are structured and described across the sector.
How salaries differ between job roles
Salary differentials between roles and sub-roles suggest there may be clear starting points for simplifying the structure of the FE workforce. For example, staff recorded as teachers and lecturers in the FEWDC have comparable earnings on average. However, they also highlight the careful thought needed to ensure coherence in any new structure. Practitioners typically earn less than teachers and lecturers, although there is a wide range of salaries among individuals in this role. This suggests that there would be merit in further developing our understanding of how the practitioner role varies across providers. Producing a clear and comprehensive set of job descriptions for roles in the FE workforce could be a first step towards achieving this consistency.
A more streamlined approach could support recruitment and retention
The FE workforce has a complex and varied structure. Our analysis suggests there may be scope for greater streamlining of roles across the sector which could provide clearer progression pathways and help attract new teachers to the FE profession. While not a substitute for other critical measures to address recruitment and retention pressures, such as providing sufficient funding to enable FE providers to pay teachers more, this may support government efforts to deliver on their pledge for 6,500 additional teachers.
Your thoughts