Why we built a programme for teachers in Years 3–5: from surviving to thriving

The system does a reasonable job of supporting teachers through their ECT years. There is structure, mentoring and protected time. Then, almost overnight, that scaffolding disappears.

For many teachers, years three to five are the most precarious phase of their career. Expectations increase, accountability feels heavier, classes are more complex and SEND needs are more visible. Yet the professional development offer often becomes fragmented, generic or optional.

At Venn Academy Trust, we decided that wasn’t good enough.

We don’t lose good teachers because they lack commitment or talent. We lose them because the system asks them to cope rather than grow.

By year three, teachers are expected to demonstrate confident pedagogy, adapt teaching effectively for pupils with SEND, manage increasing behavioural and emotional complexity and, in many cases, begin leading aspects of curriculum or subject development. Too often, this is expected to happen without the safety net that existed earlier in their career.

There is an assumption that expertise will simply arrive with time. It doesn’t. Expertise is built deliberately through structured practice, feedback and intellectual challenge.

So we asked a simple but important question: what if years three to five were treated as a formative phase in their own right, rather than an afterthought?

The Artisan Teacher Programme is not about fast-tracking people into leadership. That may happen, but it is not the purpose. The aim is to develop expert teachers who understand pedagogy deeply, can articulate why they teach the way they do, and feel confident adapting their practice for diverse and complex needs. It is about seeing SEND as integral to good teaching, not something separate, and about developing the credibility to influence others through strong classroom practice.

The programme focuses on three interconnected areas. Teachers refine their understanding of how pupils learn, how misconceptions form, how memory works and how lesson design affects outcomes. They deepen their adaptive teaching, particularly in relation to SEND, recognising that inclusive practice is not optional in a mixed trust like ours. They also begin to think beyond their own classroom, developing an understanding of curriculum coherence, progression, assessment and professional dialogue, and learning how to contribute to improvement without needing a job title.

This matters because thriving teachers stay, and exhausted teachers leave.

When teachers feel confident, intellectually stretched and professionally valued, they are more likely to remain in the profession, take on responsibility willingly and step into leadership from a position of credibility. This strengthens succession, but more importantly it creates schools where expertise is normalised and shared rather than concentrated at the top. Leadership should emerge from strong practice, not rescue it.

The programme is also a deliberate cultural choice. It signals that teachers matter beyond compliance, that professional development does not stop after ECT, and that reflection, ambition and expertise are part of the job, not extras.

In a system under pressure, it would be easy to focus only on short-term survival. We have chosen a different path.

Because if we want pupils to thrive, teachers have to thrive first.