Teaching a global profession? What do the physics ITT numbers tell us?

My previous post contained the good news for the government in the headline data about their annual census of those on teacher preparation courses. Digging down into the details of the census, there is at least one worrying trend. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/initial-teacher-training-trainee-number-census-2025-to-2026

The percentage of accepted ITT candidates within each nationality group for selected subjects for 2024/25 and 2025/26

Percentage of accepted candidates
UK and Irish nationalEEA nationalOther nationality
2024/252025/262024/252025/262024/252025/26
Total88%86%5%5%8%9%
Primary94%94%2%3%4%3%
Secondary84%82%6%6%10%13%
STEM Subjects76%74%5%5%19%22%
Physics43%32%3%2%54%66%
English93%93%3%2%4%5%
Mathematics81%81%5%5%13%14%
  1. High Potential ITT (HPITT) route and undergraduate routes are not included in this data.
  2. Subject-level candidate totals will not sum to the total candidate number due to duplication caused by candidates applying for multiple subjects.

The footnote about undergraduate routes should not be of concern as there are relatively few such courses for secondary subjects, and the numbers on primary undergraduate courses have been declining over the longer-term.

Of much more concern is the decline in percentage of accepted candidates for physics from the UK and Ireland, down from 43% last year to 32% this year. This has been balanced by and increase from 54% to 66% for candidates from outside the UK and EEA areas.

As there has bene a dramatic increase in the numbers of trainees in physics, does this matter?

On these percentages, the increase in UK and Irish trainees has been from only around 185 last year to 220 this year. That seems like a very small number and worth investigating to see if I am correct?

If I am correct, then the key issue is, where will the trainees from the rest of the world be able to teach? Will the present government’s stricter policies on immigration mean that they won’t be able to teach in England, or as graduates earning a good salary will they be given visas?

Of course, they may choose to teach in the new British state sponsored selective school being established in both India and the UAE that was recently approved by the Labour government.

British Education is a global export, regardless of the PISA scores of home students, and the destination of trainees, both within the state and private systems, as well as overseas, is an important piece of information Minister should pay more attention to than they do at present.

The number of Uk trainees is likely to be boosted in physics by those training through the High Potential route (Formerly known as Teach First), However, the data for those candidates is not included in the census this year.

No doubt there is room for some interesting parliamentary questions about trainee teachers and where they come from and where they go on to teach, especially for those that receive bursaries and other financial support from the State.

Too many teachers?

Earlier today the DfE published their Annual Census of ITT trainees. Published each December, the census identifies the numbers on the various teacher perpetration routes and some background information about their gender, ethnicity, degree class and routes into teaching. Initial teacher training: trainee number census 2025 to 2026 – GOV.UK

The census provides a helpful indication to schools about the labour market for the following September recruitment. In this case, September 2026.

In recent years, apart for during 2020 and the response to the pandemic, trainees number in many secondary subjects have been lees than the DfE predicted numbers needed to fill vacancies. In the primary sector, falling rolls and erratic recruitment numbers have meant there has been less of a coherent pattern about the balance between supply and likely demand for teachers. Of course, much depends upon assumptions about the turnover in the labour market, and the behaviour of possible ‘returners’ to teaching when reviewing recruitment patterns.

So, what of the current 2025/26 cohort?

subject2024/252025/26
Percentage of Target at census date%%
Physical Education213202
Biology116151
Art & Design64128
Primary88126
History116125
Chemistry62118
Mathematics72113
Geography91111
English99106
Modern Languages4493
All Secondary6188
Computing3780
Physics3077
Classics24573
Design & Technology4070
Music4065
Religious Education7962
Drama4741
Business Studies1530
Other1514

The government can be pleased with some of the best recruitment levels to their targets in almost a generation – covid years excepted – but challenges still remain. Nine secondary subjects didn’t meet their target number, with business studies still recruiting poorly to teaching, along with drama and religious studies where the target was missed by a larger percentage than last year.

On the good news side, mathematic exceeded its target for the first time in a long while, and the increase to 77% of target in physics teachers is very welcome news.

There will be too many primary school teachers looking for jobs come September, and although course providers will be happy to have recruited 202% of the target for physical education trainees, this over-recruitment does beg the question as to whether recruitment controls should be once again considered as a deterrent to such significant over-recruitment?

Taken with the news, highlighted in my previous post, about attitudes to pay by serving teachers, the government can probably stop worrying abut teacher recruitment for the first time since 2012.

However, all is not good news, if the Curriculum Review is to be implemented in full, attention to recruitment in some subjects will be needed. In that respect, as already suggested by this blog in a previous post, removing the bursary from music seems like a daft idea. Yes, there was a 25% increase in outcome against target, but that still left a third of places unfilled. Music departments in schools are often small and cannot be easily covered by non-specialists, such as the spare PE teachers. Time to think again on the basis of these figures.

Teachers still need more holidays

The DfE recently released the results of the latest study into teacher workload and attitudes to teaching as a career. Working lives of teachers and leaders – wave 4 summary report

There is some good news for the government in the report, not least on pay, where teachers seem slightly more content about pay than a few years ago. It makes the possibility of industrial action less likely than before the recent pay awards.

This improvement in attitude may also partly be down to the fact that hours worked, as reported in the survey, have been reducing. Primary teachers were working 1.8 hours less per week in the 2025 survey than in the 2022 survey, and secondary school teachers, 1.9 hours less. Leaders work longer hours than teachers, but have also seen a slight fall in recorded hours worked.

Phase2022202320242025
Primary Teachers53.253.952.551.4
Primary Leaders57.257.957.656.5
Secondary Teachers51.251.450.349.3
Secondary Leaders54.755.554.852.8

Source Table 3.2 Working Lives of Teachers and Leaders Working lives of teachers and leaders – wave 4 summary report

My blog about ‘how much holiday do teachers have?’ that appeared on 20th May 2022 has received more views than any other post on this blog; notching up over 6,000 views.

As a result, I thought that it would be interesting to see what the latest figures mean for teachers’ holidays. Assuming a normal week of 40 hours – yes on the high side, but stay with the calculations – this produces an average overtime of between 9.3 hours for a secondary school teacher and 17.3 for a secondary school leader.

phasenotionalactualDifference in 202538 weeksweeks hours/40
PT4051.411.443311
PL4056.516.562716
ST4049.39.33539
SL4057.317.365716

Now, multiply that overtime by 38 weeks, on the assumption that similar amount of time is spent working each week during the time pupils are in school (the use of 40 hours provides some leeway for lighter and heavier weeks. This provides a gross number of hours which when if divided by 40 produces unpaid overtime in weeks. The outcomes are

Primary Teachers 11 weeks

Secondary Teachers 9 weeks

Primary and secondary leaders 16 weeks.

Now, using the 38 weeks worked, and ignoring the 5 CPD days, that leaves 14 weeks for holidays and compensation for term-time working. On these calculations, school leaders receive no compensation, and thus no holiday under these calculations, while primary teachers have 3 weeks holiday and secondary teachers 5 weeks holiday.

Of course, pay may compensate for the additional workload, even if not paid as overtime. Personally, I doubt, except for the most well paid headteachers that the time teachers work is well fully compensated, if these numbers are correct.

The teachers’ contract is not radically different to the one I signed in 1971 with regard to holidays. My graduate colleagues outside of teaching have seen significant improvements in their holiday entitlements over the years since 1971 – many will not be working for two weeks over Christmas and the New Year, and if they are, they will receive time off in lieu.

Hopefully, as school rolls fall, the working week of teachers will also continue to reduce, especially with more sensible approaches to tasks such as marking and preparation. However, there is still a long way to go for teachers to feel that they genuinely have the same of holidays entitlement as most other graduates.