The Early Career Framework: Key findings for policymakers and school leaders from the early roll-out evaluation

Launched as part of the Conservative government’s Teacher Recruitment and Retention Strategy, the ECF aims to increase teacher retention, improve the quality of teaching, and enhance teacher job satisfaction. A pilot programme known as the early roll-out (ERO) was introduced in 2020-21 in selected areas before the programme was expanded nationwide in 2021-22. 

NFER’s recently published evaluation of the ECF ERO, commissioned and funded by the Education Endowment Foundation, offers several key insights into the framework’s implementation, impact, and areas for improvement. These findings are particularly relevant for policymakers, school leaders, and teachers as they consider the implementation of the national roll-out of the ECF and the development of future strategies for teacher support and retention. 

1. No impact on ECTs’ short-term retention  

A central aim of the ECF is to address the supply crisis in teaching by providing more structured support for ECTs and thereby improve retention. The evaluation found that while the ECF ERO helped schools create a supportive environment for new teachers, it did not show a significant effect on short-term teacher retention—specifically, the likelihood of ECTs staying in teaching beyond their first or second year.  

On a more positive note, ECTs participating in the ERO were more likely to remain in their original induction school after two years compared to those in the comparison group. Qualitative findings suggest the ERO promoted stronger relationships between ECTs and their mentors, fostering a sense of belonging and connection within their schools, which may have contributed to higher retention rates at the same school. 

Do these findings imply that the national roll-out (NRO) of the ECF will also have limited impact on teacher retention? Not necessarily. Several factors may have contributed to the headline null result. These factors include the disruption caused by Covid-19 to the implementation of the ERO and possible dilution effects from comparison schools accessing ERO materials via a government initiative supporting NQTs during the pandemic. Furthermore, the fact that ERO schools were in areas with higher levels of pupil deprivation than schools nationally, makes it difficult to draw direct conclusions for the NRO. Additionally, some modifications have been introduced in the NRO, as outlined below.  

2. High satisfaction with mentoring but challenges around ECT and mentor workload 

One of the most significant new developments which came with the ECF is the mentoring provided to ECTs. The evaluation found mentoring was highly valued by ECTs. Early Career Teachers reported feeling more confident, especially in areas such as lesson planning and classroom management. The structured guidance offered by mentors was seen as a critical factor in helping them navigate the early years of their teaching career. 

However, a key challenge highlighted by the evaluation was the impact of the programme on ECTs’ and mentors’ workloads. Many mentors found it challenging to dedicate enough time to their mentoring responsibilities while juggling their other teaching and administrative duties. Additionally, in their first year of teaching, a higher percentage of ERO ECTs reported they were unable to complete their induction-related tasks within the allocated 10 per cent timetable reduction, compared to those in the comparison group.  

These findings should prompt policymakers and school leaders to reflect on how to provide adequate support for ECTs and mentors. While some adjustments have already been made to the NRO – such as reviewing and streamlining mentor support – further actions may be necessary. This could include reviewing school timetables or allocating additional resources so that mentors have sufficient time to offer meaningful guidance without overextending themselves. Such measures are vital for fostering an environment where mentoring remains effective and sustainable, ultimately benefiting new teachers and the wider school workforce. 

3. Variation in implementation across schools 

The evaluation revealed some variation in how the ECF was implemented across schools, with some schools fully embracing the structured support offered through the ‘full induction programme’ and others struggling to integrate it into their existing practices. This inconsistency affected the quality of support ECTs received and may consequently have affected the outcomes of the programme for some participants. 

Schools that had strong leadership support, set aside time for mentors, and provided assistance in managing workloads for both ECTs and mentors experienced smoother implementation of the ECF. In contrast, schools where ECT workloads were not well-managed or where mentors lacked adequate time to engage with the programme faced greater challenges in implementation.  

These findings underscore the importance of school leadership in the success of the ECF. Senior leaders should ensure their schools are fully committed to the framework’s implementation, including providing adequate time for mentors and integrating ECF-related activities into school schedules. For policymakers, this points to the need for further guidance and support to ensure more consistent implementation across different settings. 

4. Increased self-efficacy among ECTs 

One of the more positive findings from the evaluation was the reported increase in self-efficacy among ECTs participating in the ECF. Compared to the comparison group, participating ECTs felt more confident in their ability to manage classrooms, design effective lessons, and engage with pupils. The structured nature of the ECF, with clear goals and ongoing feedback, helped ECTs feel more in control of their teaching practice. 

This is a promising outcome for schools, as teacher self-efficacy is closely linked to job satisfaction and retention. For policymakers, this highlights the importance of sustained support and professional development for new teachers. The ECF’s focus on building skills and confidence should continue to be a priority as the programme is refined and expanded as part of the new combined Initial Teacher Training and Early Career Framework (ITTECF), which is due to be implemented from September 2025. 

5. Need for more tailored support for different teaching contexts 

Finally, the evaluation highlighted the need for more tailored support within the ECF. Teachers working in different contexts and in different subject areas reported that the generic nature of the ECF did not always align with their specific needs. Some also reported it was repetitive, both of initial teacher training (ITT) content, and of content within the programme, particularly in year two.  

This finding suggests that while the ECF provides a valuable foundation for teacher induction, it may need to be more flexible to accommodate the diverse contexts in which teachers work. Additional flexibilities have already been introduced in the NRO to better meet ECTs’ varied needs. However, policymakers, delivery providers and schools should consider whether developing supplementary resources or further adapting the framework would better support teachers across different subjects and settings. 

Implications for policymakers and school leaders 

The evaluation of the ECF ERO provides several important insights for both policymakers and school leaders. While the framework has the potential to improve teacher retention and enhance the quality of teaching, its success depends on consistent implementation, adequate support for mentors, and tailoring to different teacher and school contexts. 

While the ERO findings have already led to improvements in the NRO, they also hold value for the upcoming ITTECF, which we understand is designed to address additional areas of concern highlighted in the evaluation. The integration of the ITT and ECF into a single framework aims to streamline the process, reducing redundancy between teacher training and the induction phase for ECTs. We also understand that the mentor training programme will be further streamlined to address concerns regarding mentor workload, and that greater contextualisation will be provided to ECTs and their mentors to support more tailored delivery. This should improve both the coherence and delivery of the framework, but to ensure this is the case the new framework should be subjected to consistent evaluation, and, if things aren’t working, adjustment. 

For school leaders, the evaluation underscores the importance of strong leadership and careful planning in implementing the ECF. By fully committing to the framework and ensuring that mentors are well-supported, schools can create a positive environment for ECTs, helping them to thrive, and furnishing them with the necessary knowledge, skills, techniques, and support systems to navigate the steep learning curve toward becoming proficient and effective teachers. 

In conclusion, while the ECF is still in its early stages, its potential to support new teachers is clear. With continued refinement and support, it could become a valuable tool in tackling the persistent teacher recruitment and retention challenges facing schools today.