About John Howson

Former county councillor in Oxfordshire and sometime cabinet member for children services, education and youth.

Should the NHS pay more to support children with SEND?

Posted on October 30, 2025 by John Howson

The new index of deprivation, published today by the government, contains an important message about affluent areas such as Oxfordshire. English indices of deprivation 2025: statistical release – GOV.UK

Oxfordshire ranks highly on three of the four areas I looked at, and especially so on Health and Employment, where the lowest rankings are 65/296 in health and 36/296 in employment, and the highest 8/296 in health and 4/296 in employment.

District Council	Education	Health	Crime	Employment
South Oxfordshire	258	288	287	292
Vale of White Horse	235	284	283	275
West Oxfordshire	233	279	285	263
Cherwell	155	252	231	260
City of Oxford	156	231	123	262

District Council	Education	Health	Crime	Employment
South Oxfordshire	38	8	9	4
Vale of White Horse	61	12	13	21
West Oxfordshire	63	17	11	33
Cherwell	141	44	65	36
City of Oxford	140	65	173	34

However, the ranking for both Cherwell and City of Oxford districts for education, at 141 and 140/296 compare badly with the ranking elsewhere in the county. Overall, the education ranks are still the lowest ranking scores for all districts, except for the City of Oxford, where the ranking for crime is 173/296, over a hundred places lower than any other district in the county.

The comparison between the education rankings and the health rankings raises an interesting question. Why is education doing so badly in Oxfordshire, especially in the urban areas of Oxford and Banbury? It is difficult to blame the local authority, as all but one of the secondary schools and many primary schools are academies and part of MATs.

Perhaps the formula for education funding is so linked to the county’s rank across all indices that the current funding formula for schools cannot compensate for the needs of Oxfordshire children living in its most deprived communities.

It is clear that there are issues nationally with the formula for the High Needs Block that funds SEND, but again does Oxfordshire lose out more than other areas? After all, it schools are generally highly regarded by ofsted; it has two world class universities, and leading science and technology companies driving the economy.

On the SEND issues, one question is whether the NHS is pulling its weight on supporting children with SEND? Assuming that the overall ranking for the county is not going to see any government be more generous to Oxfordshire with regard to funding, however the present county may be configured post local government reorganisation, then there must be a strong case to require the NHS to spend more resources on supporting children with special needs even if its overall ranking slips a few places as a result. This would reduce the need for the county, and the schools within the county, having to prop up spending on SEND that should really come from the health budget.

There is no doubt Oxfordshire is not a county with a high degree of deprivation, but what deprivation there is can be concentrated in a few wards in the urban areas abut also spread out across the rural parts of the county. The former is easy to identify, the latter more of a challenge. Both need more funding for education.

Why ’V’ Levels are important for Labour

Posted on October 20, 2025 by John Howson

Alongside her campaign to become deputy leader of the Labour Party, the Secretary of State for Education has found time today to announce a new post-16 set of qualifications, called ‘V’ Levels, presumably to bring order to the landscape of such qualifications that she sees as confusing.

As I write this blog, the exact details of the new qualification to sit alongside ‘A’ & ‘T’ Levels has not yet been announced to the House of Commons, so we don’t yet know about the nature and format of ‘V’ Levels in detail.

However, as the following table shows, they may be important to many Labour Party members fighting non-metropolitan seats in the north of England, The Midlands and the South West region.

Region	Number of pupils completing key stage 4	Sustained education, employment & apprenticeships	Sustained education destination	Sustained apprenticeships	Sustained employment destination
North East	26,931	91.5	81.7	4.6	5.2
South West	53,111	93.9	84.1	4.7	5.0
Yorkshire and The Humber	58,918	92.0	82.8	4.3	4.9
North West	79,550	92.1	83.3	4.1	4.7
East Midlands	50,002	92.6	84.2	4.2	4.2
East of England	64,445	94.2	87.4	2.7	4.1
West Midlands	64,565	92.4	85.2	3.2	4.0
South East	90,649	94.3	87.7	2.6	4.0
London	84,427	94.6	92.0	0.9	1.7
Outer London	55,921	94.8	92.0	1.0	1.7
Inner London	28,506	94.1	91.9	0.6	1.5

The data is for 2023 and was published last week by the DfE as Destinations of key stage 4 and 5 students: 2024 – GOV.UK although it doesn’t seem to contain the 2024 data yet.

London students, and especially those in inner London Key Stage providers seem overwhelmingly to remain in a sustained education institution, albeit not necessarily the institution where they undertook their Key Stage 4 courses. Less than 1% of inner London students proceeded to a sustained apprenticeship. Obviously, there is more room for such apprenticeships to be offered to these pupils. By contrast, the further away from London the region, the more likely that over 4% of students will proceed to apprenticeships.

The pattern for employment, not regarded by previous government as a key option after the raising unofficially of the learning leaving age to eighteen, mirrors that of apprenticeships, with higher rates the further away from London students are located. Indeed, London is something of an outlier in respect of employment rates for this group, following the pattern expected after the raising f the school leaving age.

Missing for the table are the NEETS – those not in any category in the table. Will ‘V’ Level qualifications help reduce this number, and might it help if such qualifications started at 14, the age when many NEETS fall out of interest in schooling? I was going to write, ‘fall out of love’, but many, I suspect, were never actually in love with schooling.

Anyway, I will be interesting to see whether the announcement helps the Secretary of State’s own election campaign and, if so, whether she will be in place to take the initiative forward?

Funding SEND – is the current system fair?

Posted on October 17, 2025 by John Howson

The DfE has just published data that sets the context for the expected White Paper, due this autumn. Looking at the data on the High Needs Block that has been the basic building block for the funding of SEND (special needs and disabilities), I can see why there must have been some very intense discussions between the DfE and the Treasury. Section 251: 2025 to 2026 – GOV.UK

The data on individual special school funding only refers to maintained schools where local authorities are responsible for oversight of the budgets. It would be really helpful to see similar ‘cost per place’ data for academy special schools and alternative provision, including Pupil Referral Units, even though they have a different financial year to maintained schools.

The data for the municipal financial year of 2025-26 for Oxfordshire was set while I was still the cabinet member for Children’s Services, including maintained schools. The data on funding per place for the three maintained special schools in Oxfordshire is illuminating. There is a total of 522 such schools in England listed in the data. The most expensive costs £8.2 million per place, and judging by its website does a great job educating some very challenged young people from the start of their education journey to adulthood.

Now special schools come in many different forms with clearly different funding needs. A school for pupils with hearing loss and no other disability might need less funding per place than a school for non-verbal young people with physical disabilities in addition

The three Oxfordshire maintained schools were placed 74^th, 155^th and 170^th in the list of 522 schools, with funding per place ranging from £840,000 to £1,2 million. Schools with £2,000,000 per place of more were ranked 373 of higher in the list. Does this mean that Oxfordshire is efficient or under-funded compared with some other local areas? I do wonder.

Even allowing for issues such as higher salary costs in London and surrounding areas, the range of cost per place for similar types of school seems worth looking into more closely, and that is where the academy special schools’ data would be useful in order to allow full consideration of cost per place by local government areas.

The current High Needs block distribution formula clearly isn’t working, and I wonder whether equity of funding is an issue for the team putting together the White Paper? How does anyone judge what is fair in funding levels? Wiser heads than mine will know the answer to that question.

Of course, the other key funding issue for SEND, especially outside of the urban areas, is the cost of transport. The Section 251 budget statement for planned expenditure during 2025-26 by Oxfordshire at Line 175092 of the DfE’s spreadsheet suggests expected spending on SEND transport, including for post-16 students of around f£26.4 million. This compares with expected home to school transport costs of just under £21 million for all other pupils entitled to fee transport.

How will the White Paper deal with this cost? Hopefully, it will recognise that such costs should be met by government up to age 18 or even 19 for all such pupils, and not be discretionary beyond age 16. Could a government funded driver scheme for unemployed adults with a driving licence remove the profit element from such expenditure or would the administration costs be more than the saving made by not using private sector firms?

These are not easy issues to grapple with, but starting with some values about the needs of children with SEND would be a good basis for the outcomes in the White Paper. However, as my earlier analysis of Pupil Teacher Ratios demonstrated, funding and values are not common cause in government spending, regardless of the political persuasion of the government in power. Oxford Teacher Services -publications

I don’t want knife arches in schools

Posted on October 9, 2025 by John Howson

The BBC has conducted a survey of knife crime in schools, using Freedom of Information data from police forces. Children as young as four taking knives into school, BBC finds – BBC News

As regular readers of the blog know, this is a topic of personal interest to me because of what I experienced as a teacher nearly 50 years ago. Knife crime: do we need mandatory sentences? | John Howson

I am sorry for the mother whose son was stabbed to death in school by another pupil, that death, as any death anywhere, is a matter of shame on society.

However, I think that the general secretary of ASCL quoted in the BBC piece has it about right.

‘The Association of Schools and College Leaders says while it is relatively rare for pupils to bring knives into schools, it would like to see greater efforts across society to tackle the issue.

“More than a decade of cuts to community policing and youth outreach programmes has meant school leaders, too often, find themselves with little or no support,” says general secretary, Pepe Di’lasio.’

Cuts to youth services and too many images of knives in entertainment don’t help, as does a lack of teachers serving in high-risk schools long enough to build relationships with pupils.

It is interesting that the academy trust mentioned by the BBC as introducing metal detection arches is located in the West Midlands. The police in that area, according to the BBC, report much higher levels of knife crime incidents in education establishment than other police forces, so perhaps for now some form of detection is acceptable.

However, I would not want detection arches to become a permanent feature or school life. At some point society has to defuse such situations. Schools should not become like airports, after all rail and underground stations function without metal detectors, but not without incidents.

There needs to be a risk assessment, and the issue needs to be kept in proportion. In 2024, the BBC data showed an incidence of 21 knife offence in schools per 1,000,000 students. If there are 6 million students that’s 126 offences per year. I think that the expenditure on knife detecting arches could be better spent elsewhere, and such arches won’t protect students on school buses before they reach the school.

For those children below the age of criminal responsibility, any child with a knife is a matter for Children’s Services, and for parents to explain how their child could leave home with a knife.

Finally, I would ban knives and swords from shop window displays. Such display glorifies weapons, and have no place on our high streets.

For those that want to know more about young people and knife crime this presentation by the youth Justice board from August 2025 is a useful introduction. Knife Crime, Key Evidence and Insights, Aug 2025

According to the government, in the year ending March 2024, there were just over 3,200 knife or offensive weapon offences committed by children resulting in a caution or sentence, which is 6% fewer than the previous year but 20% greater than 10 years ago. This is the sixth consecutive year-on-year decrease.

In the latest year, the vast majority (99.7%) of knife or offensive weapon offences committed by children were possession offences and the remaining 0.1% were threatening with a knife or offensive weapon offences.

In the year ending March 2024, 61% of disposals given to children for a knife or offensive weapon offence were a community sentence. This proportion is broadly stable over the last 10 years.

The proportion of children sentenced to immediate custody was 7% in the last year, which is the same level it has been for the last three years. Youth Justice Statistics: 2023 to 2024 – GOV.UK

Labour’s determination to recruit new teachers doesn’t include music

Posted on October 8, 2025 by John Howson

‘Now, when I think back to my school days, when I think of the happy memories. It was all about the teachers I had along the way.

The ones who helped me succeed are the ones who made me feel like I belonged.

That’s why I am determined to help you recruit and retain more great teachers in your schools.

And to encourage more people to get into the profession, what’s why we have set out today the new initial teacher training incentive.

I want more great teachers in our schools, working their magic.

And it really is magic – what they do, what you do.

Don’t ever let anyone tell you otherwise.

And I certainly won’t let anyone tell me otherwise.

You have the wonderful power to transform lives.

To give to children the knowledge and skills they need to succeed, not just in work, but in life too.

Extract from Secretary of State for Education’s speech at RISE Attainment Conference.’ Education Secretary speech at RISE attainment conference – GOV.UK

With respect, Secretary of State, what about Music teachers? The bursary for the subject has been removed for those applying to train in 2026. This is despite the likelihood of the number of entrants to ITT courses this autumn not meeting the ITT target set by the DfE. With the cuts in music courses at universities, competition of the remaining graduates is likely to intensify as the arts sector continues to contribute to increasing the national wealth.

It is not as if missing the ITT target in music is something new.

ITT census	% of target recruited
2019/20	80
2020/21	122
2021/22	71
2022/23	62
2023/24	27
2024/25	40
2025/25	65

Source: DfE ITT censuses

Presumably, the DfE is hoping that the AI revolution that will remove many existing graduate entry level jobs, will create a similar situation to the covid pandemic that drove graduates back to choosing teaching as a career. Will this be true? Only if the universities are producing the same number of new graduates, since potential career changers may already be in jobs less threatened by AI?

The text of this 2024 article suggests that new graduates in music may be harder to find than in the past Full scale of university arts cuts emerges – Arts Professional

My message is simple, the bursary should not have been removed for music, and possibly other arts subjects as well. However, the DfE should monitor applications for September 2026 training and, if by February, they are showing a failure to meet the target again in 2026, then the bursary should be reintroduced.

By the way, I have a simple formula for monitoring applications against target that I used for over a decade when UCAS managed the ITT application process. I might start using it again when the 2026 applications are revealed each month.

My reason for picking on music for this post is that I have just been invited to take over the role of Chair of Oxfordshire’s Music Hub Board.

Is Labour making mistakes on ITT bursaries?

Posted on October 7, 2025 by John Howson

Yesterday, the government announced the bursaries for trainee graduate teachers and support for school training through the Post Graduate Apprenticeship route (PGTA). As might be expected, the subjects covered by these inducements to train as a teacher are mostly STEM subjects, plus some other subjects, but not the arts and humanities subjects, except for geography for some reason.

Subject	Bursary	Scholarship
Biology	£5,000
Chemistry	£29,000	£31,000
Computing	£29,000	£31,000
Design and technology	£20,000
Geography	£5,000
Languages	£20,000	£22,000
(French, German and Spanish only)
Languages	£20,000
(all other languages, including ancient languages)
Maths	£29,000
Physics	£29,000	£31,000

Teacher training bursaries | Get Into Teaching GOV.UK

The bursaries are paid for by the government, and the scholarships mostly by the subject associations. While I can understand the government’s desire to increase training numbers up to target in these subjects, the list does raise two important questions about what seems like a continuation of the policy of the previous Conservative government.

Firstly, are these now the subjects where targets will not be met in 2025 when the ITT census is published in December. If there are other subjects not likely to meet their ITT target, why are they not included in the list?

I produced this table for an earlier blog, but it is worth repeating here.

Subject	Target2025/26	% increase Sept on June	accepted Sept 25	over/under target
Total Secondary	19,270	26%	16843	-2,427
Primary	7,650	34%	9880	2,230
Chemistry	730	49%	909	179
Biology	985	36%	1397	412
Mathematics	2,300	35%	2617	317
Design & Technology	965	33%	678	-287
Art & Design	680	33%	902	222
Geography	935	33%	981	46
Classics	60	32%	42	-18
English	1,950	31%	1760	-190
Drama	620	30%	273	-347
Business Studies	900	29%	235	-665
Music	565	28%	343	-222
Religious Education	780	28%	418	-362
Others	2,520	25%	360	-2,160
History	790	23%	936	146
Modern Languages	1,460	21%	1428	-32
Physics	1,410	19%	1313	-97
Physical Education	725	17%	1491	766
Computing	895	5%	761	-134

Why are subjects such business studies – a perennial ITT target failure – and music and religious education not included in the bursary list? Does a Labour government not believe these subjects are worth supporting?

The second issue is around whether there will be the jobs available for trainees recruited into training in September 2026, and entering the labour market in September 2027, if on a traditional course. The more the PGTA route is funded, the fewer advertised vacancies there may be if the schools convert PGTA trainees into qualified teachers doing the same job.

The government announcement contains no discussion about the labour market for teachers, and whether ITT trainees, faced with a secondary sector where pupil numbers will be at best flat, and at worst in decline, if the decline in the birthrate together with government policies on immigration or even the threat of them help to reduce the secondary school population.

From my perspective, this announcement like a sloppy piece of work by the DfE, in what could be a rapidly changing labour market, if the intention is to ensure all subjects receive sufficient new entrants into the labour market in 2026.

However, if there is a rapid decline in graduate level entry posts as a result of AI, then the government’s stance may be vindicated, even if says nothing about equality of opportunity.

Are men returning to teaching as a career?

Posted on October 4, 2025 by John Howson

Further delving into the DfE research into school leadership brough to light two more interesting facts. The first is the fact that Headteachers in the secondary sector are more likely to have a Level 7 qualification than head teachers in the primary sector. 76.8% of secondary heads have a Level 7 qualification compared with 41.6% of headteachers in the primary sector.

This difference should not surprise anyone with a sense of history, as many primary headteachers trained when the undergraduate route into primary teaching was still almost as common as the post graduate route. What is more surprising is that the PGCE is classified as a Level 7 qualification. In terms of level of content, I would assume it was actually a Level 6 qualification.

In reality, with more school-based trainees, including those that completed the Teach First route, this will not be a very useful statistic in the future.

The other nugget in the data doesn’t concern leadership statistics, but men in primary classrooms. In order to account for the data on leadership, many of the tables also contain information about classroom teachers and middle and senior leaders not headteachers.

The percentage of classroom teachers in the primary school sector that are male was on the increase between 2010 and 2020, whereas in secondary schools the percentage has continued to decline.

Year	% Male classroom teacher in primary sector	Total classroom teachers
2010	11,3%	130,800
2016	13.9%	142,800
2020	14.0%	144,900

Year	% Male classroom teacher in secondary sector	Total classroom teachers
2010	35.7%	117.100
2016	34.3%	103,900
2020	33.8%	106,000

Data from pages 26,27 and 73 School leadership in England 2010 to 2020: characteristics and trends

Because male teachers are less likely to have a break in service than female teachers, even with maternity leave of one year, there are still higher percentages of males as headteacher in the primary sector than the percentage of male classroom teachers. However, the percentage of male headteachers has been declining, from 29% of primary sector heads in 2010 to 26.2% in 2020.

In the secondary sector, the percentage of male headteachers declined from 62.1% in 2010 to 59.9% in 2020, suggesting that the glass ceiling is still proving difficult to breakthrough after an initial growth in the percentage of female head teachers during the first decade of the century.

Looking back in history, in both 1989 and 1996 male applicants accounted for 36% of PGCE applicants in both years. This was down from 43% of applicants recorded in 1983. In 1995 men accounted for just 16.1% of applicants to primary PGCE courses (Source Howson, Education Review, Summer 1996, Volume 10 Number 1 pp 36-40)

According to the latest DfE data for applications to postgraduate ITT training in the 2024-25 round, released in September 2025, male candidates made up 44% of all applicants, up from 39% the previous year. However, the DfE do not release gender data for either sectors or subjects, as was the case with the GTTR data. Nevertheless, the 2024-25 percentage of 44% male applicants is very similar to the 43% recorded in 1983.

It would be interesting to know whether male candidates receive offers at the same rate as female candidates, especially if only candidates domiciled in England are considered. However, that data isn’t in the monthly releases from the DfE.

Perhaps the low point in male interest in primary school teaching has been reached, but with training numbers on the decline, the balance between applications and offers does need to be monitored, and preferably shared with the sector to ensure discussion about any future trends.

How easy is it for a mature entrant to become a headteacher?

Posted on October 3, 2025 by John Howson

The recent DfE research into promotions provides some food for thought School leadership in England 2010 to 2020: characteristics and trends

Page 69 of the report contains the following paragraph.

‘Teachers may enter a leadership grade more than one step above their current grade or may enter a leadership grade after being outside the system. These non-sequential promotions make up a significant minority of promotions. In primaries schools, for example, for every 100 senior leaders in 2016 who were heads in 2020, 12 classroom teachers, 12 middle leaders and 11 system entrants also became heads. In secondary schools, for every 100 senior leaders from 2016 who were heads in 2020, 3 classroom teachers, 5 middle leaders and 5 system entrants also became heads. Non-sequential promotions appear to be more common in primary schools, where leadership roles are more limited and ‘linear’ progression may be more difficult.’

Interestingly no mention is made in the text of the position in special schools, a disturbing oversight in view of the current concerns about SEND.

Following on from the text there is a histogram of ‘The Grade occupied by 2020 heads in 2016, split by school phase in 2020, in terms of FTE’.

Grade	Primary	Secondary	Special
Head	64	52	52
Senior Leader	26	39	32
Middle Leader	3	1	4
Classroom Teacher	3	1	3
System Entrant	3	6	9

There is no mention in the text of the fact that in many small primary schools there may be no senior leader, so any internal appointment would inevitably come from either a middle leader or classroom teacher.

What is interesting is the fact that almost one in ten headteachers in special schools in 2020 were system entrants in 2016. Where did these entrants come from, were they from special schools outside the state sector or did they bring other expertise to the post of headteacher.

How long does it take to become a headteacher?

In view of the fact that most headteachers seem to be appointed as a result of ‘linear’ progression through the different grades, especially in secondary schools, how long does it take to reach headship?

Is there an age or length of service by which, if a teacher has not reached assistant head grade, they unlikely to ever make it to a headship? If so, do mature entrants that become teachers after the age of thirty face a promotion ceiling in their careers? Is the position different in primary schools, with their flatter leadership teams, than in secondary schools with assistant, deputy and headteachers roles, often now overseen by an executive head.

The DfE research showed that in 2010, headteachers had a median of 27 years since qualification, and that this reduced to 23 years in 2016 and then rose slightly to 24 years in 2020. The median years of experience of senior leaders reduced from 18 years in 2010 to 17years in 2014 where it remained until 2020. The reduction between the upper quartiles for years since qualification was greatest for senior leaders, 24 years since qualification in 2020 compared with 30 years in 2010. There was virtually no change in the lower quartile between 2010 and 2020, for example, this was 13 years since qualification for senior leaders in both 2010 and 2020.

As this data covers both primary and secondary schools, it is difficult to know whether promotion is faster in the smaller primary schools, if you are lucky with turnover, that in large secondary schools with many more layers of leadership. Clearly, some mature entrants achieve headship, but the message must be that if you want promotion as a mature entrant, start your journey quickly and use the skills you have brought to the profession from your former career. A decade ago, I wrote this blog about the career of Mrs Clarke who went from volunteer to headteacher in the same school. Congratulations Mrs Clarke | John Howson

Sadly, the research is silent about entrants from different subject backgrounds. Do historians and geographers, generally joining smaller department, find progress to a headship easier than teachers of English and mathematics where there may be several grades of middle leadership within the department?

We should encourage mature entrants, but make it clear that those joining after the age of thirty may find career progression more of a challenge, especially where governing bodies value length of service rather than skills and expertise for the role. No doubt MATs with more professionals involved in promotion decisions will be more open to those entering teaching later in life.

Are headteachers really staying less time in post?

Posted on October 2, 2025 by John Howson

As someone that started collecting data about the turnover of head teachers way back in the 1980s, and added deputy headteacher posts in the 1990s, and when the Assistant head grade was created added those to my dataset, the latest research from the DfE on leadership turnover is very welcome. School Leadership retention, Reporting year 2024 – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK

However, it comes with a health warning. The methodology section contains the following

Exploratory analysis of Teacher Pension Scheme (TPS ….. suggests that the number of head teachers still in service but not being reported in the School Workforce Census has been increasing in recent years, substantially impacting the trends seen in this release. School Leadership retention: methodology – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK

This warning needs to be borne in mind when considering the trends of length of service in post. The DfE data also excluded headteachers on a temporary contract, and those over 50 where retirement is likely to be their next career move.

On the face of it headteachers are spending less time in post.

Primary
Year of Census	Base	% 1 Year	% 5 year
2011	974	93.7%	78.8%
2012	1075	92.4%	77.0%
2013	1177	91.1%	76.4%
2014	1302	90.2%	73.3%
2015	1311	90.5%	74.4%
2016	1349	89.6%	73.9%
2017	1404	87.8%	71.6%
2018	1262	88.3%	70.0%
2019	1219	90.2%	70.0%
2020	966	89.2%	z
2021	1114	89.2%	z
2022	1414	88.9%	z
2023	1273	89.7%	z
2024	1199	z	z

Primary head teachers in post one year after appointment seem to be around 4% less for those appointed in 2023 compared with the class of 2011. After five years, there is around an 8% decline from nearly 79% to 70%, although we have yet to see the effect of covid on turnover.

Secondary
Year of Census	Base	% 1 Year	% 5 year
2011	240	91.2%	65.0%
2012	289	91.0%	64.7%
2013	327	87.2%	62.1%
2014	378	85.4%	61,4%
2015	384	86.7%	62.0%
2016	430	84.7%	60.5%
2017	437	84.9%	63.6%
2018	440	85.0%	60.2%
2019	421	87.6%	62.5%
2020	317	90.2%	z
2021	329	83.9%	z
2022	404	84.9%	z
2023	416	85.6%	z
2024	419	z	z

For the secondary sector, turnover after one year has increased by nearly six per cent, and by around 5% after five years. In this respect, secondary teacher seems more likely to stay in post longer.

This is not surprising, as an appointment to a secondary headship historically was less likely to lead to another appointment, whereas in the primary sector many heads were first appointed to a small school and then took a subsequent headship in a larger school.

However, the defining feature of the period under discussion is the transfer of a large number of schools from maintained school status to becoming an academy. The next decade will help explain where that period of change was a temporary change in turnover rates or the creation of a new landscape where headteachers move more frequently.

The DfE research also has analysis on whether headteachers remain in any posts in a school within the sector. Again, secondary heads are more likely, (as retirements are excluded), to remain in a secondary school, whereas primary teachers are now less likely than in 2011 to remain in a school. It would be interesting to know where those teachers are now employed, and whether they are still working in education.

No doubt the pressure on the primary sector has been harder for heads to deal with than for their secondary colleagues since many primary schools do not have the same range of support staff as their secondary colleagues. Many more may have also had to content with the outcomes of an ofsted visit.

This is a useful dataset, but it should be made more comprehensive by ensuing all MATs complete the School Workforce Census and that new categories of posts, such as Executive Headteacher, are captured within the census.

Do children attend school?

Posted on October 1, 2025 by John Howson

The latest DfE repot of parent and student views contains some data that are at odds with the general perception of schooling. The data on attendance in the ‘voice’ results are so at odds with the general perception that it raises questions about who completes this sort of questionnaire. Parent, pupil and learner voice: May 2025 – GOV.UK

Generally, the perception is that fewer children are attending school on a regular basis. But here is the DfE’s evidence from their survey.

Across previous academic years, the proportions of pupils and learners who said they had been to school every day or most days were:

Wave	Key stage 3 pupils	Key stage 4 pupils	16-19 pupils and learners
2025-05	96%	95%	84%
2025-03	95%	93%	92%
2024-09	97%	96%	–
2024-03	95%	95%	–
2023-12	96%	94%

And for the parents the data are even more out of line with reality

Across previous academic years, the proportions of parents who said that their child had been to school every day or most days were:

Wave	Primary parents	Secondary parents	Special parents
2025-05	99%	95%	93%
2024-09	98%	96%	91%
2024-03	98%	95%	93%
2023-12	99%	95%	91%

Would that 99% of primary pupils attended school that often. The reduction of only one per cent for the secondary sector parents between September 2024 and May 2025, from 96% to 95% even with sample sizes of more than 3,000 for both pupils and parents does seem a little out of line with the views coming from schools more generally about attendance.

Sickness or study leave were the two reasons given most frequently for absence by pupils and learners, followed by other reasons, where 16-19s had the highest percentage at 30%. Interestingly, 6% of the 16-19 cited the cost of travel, something this blog has highlighted as an issue.

Percentages for bullying s a reason for absence were low, at 5% of KS3, and 3% of KS4 pupils, compared with one per cent of KS3 parents, but 8% of KS4 parents: a big difference between pupil and parent responders.

Similarly, only 4% of KS3, and 3% of KS4 pupils, cited suspension or exclusion as reasons for missing school. Interestingly no parents of KS3 pupils, but 5% of KS4 pupils, cited suspension or exclusion as a reason for missing school.

Tables 8 & 9 of the Technical Document on the Methodology contain the information about the percentage of parents and pupils that completed each wave, although no other information about their characteristics is forthcoming. This is despite the careful sampling frame developed to take account of a large number of different variables. Parent, Pupil and Learner Voice Technical Report: September 2025

This does raise the question around who completes questionnaires and might the missing groups have had different responses? I cannot help but wonder whether the issue of response rates might have been more prominently discussed. However, we all know persuading those sent questionnaires to return them is always a tricky task, so any responses are better than none.

John Howson

Education and the numbers that affect what happens

Author Archives: John Howson