Author Archives: John Howson

Unknown's avatar

About John Howson

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

‘Stuck’ schools – who teaches in these schools?

Posted on by
Reply

The DfE has today updated the ad hoc data about schools eligible for RISE support. Schools in the RISE programme are those with support from the Regional Improvement for Standards and Excellence advisers and teams. According to the data, some 50 schools have been eligible for the programme for 11 years or more.  Schools eligible for RISE intervention – GOV.UK

To become eligible for RISE a school must be a ‘stuck’ school.

A ‘stuck’ school is defined as a state-funded school that was graded Requires Improvement – or equivalent – at its most recent Ofsted inspection and was also graded below Good at its previous Ofsted inspection.

Where inspections have been completed subsequent to the removal of single headline grades in September 2024 (and in the interim before report cards are introduced), for the definition of stuck schools and for the purpose of its intervention policy, DfE treats a sub-judgement of Requires Improvement for leadership and management and/or quality of education for a school inspected in 2024/25 academic year as equivalent to a previous single headline grade of Requires Improvement.

Following the introduction of Ofsted school report cards, the definition of stuck schools will be updated to “schools which receive a ‘needs attention’ grade for leadership and governance, which were graded below good, or equivalent, at their previous Ofsted inspection”. 

At 30 June 2025 there were 639 stuck schools, and 292,000 pupils in those schools.

Of those:

  • 372 are primary schools, 235 are secondary schools, 21 are special schools and 11 are pupil referral units
  • 90 are local authority maintained schools and 549 are academies or free schools (although some of these were not academies at the time of their most recent inspection)
  • Across the spring, summer and autumn RISE cohorts, 396 academies and local authority maintained schools have been identified for targeted RISE intervention. As of 31 July 2025, 377 schools remain in the programme, 349 of which are stuck and 28 of which are academies in a category of concern.
  • Of the remaining stuck schools, some have changed responsible body since their most recent inspection and are therefore not eligible.  Others will be considered for inclusion in later cohorts.

On average, as at 30 June 2025, the 639 stuck schools were graded by Ofsted as below Good or equivalent for 5.6 years.

  • The 372 primary schools that are stuck have been rated below Good or equivalent for an average of 4.7 years.
  • The 235 secondary schools that are stuck have been rated below Good or equivalent for an average of 6.9 years.
  • On average, as 31 July 2025, the 377 schools in receipt of targeted RISE intervention from the RISE advisers and teams, were graded by Ofsted as below Good or equivalent for 5.8 years. Of these, 50 were below Good for more than 11 years.

As might be expected, ‘stuck’ schools as a group exhibit lower outcomes and higher absence and suspension/exclusions than other school of a similar type.

This data concentrates on pupil outcomes. What I think would be more interesting is information about staffing. How often has the headteacher changed during the past decade in a ‘stuck’ school. What is the turnover of teaching staff, and how many are ‘unqualified’ or on programmes to become qualified compared with other local schools?

Until it is possible to match data about staffing to outcomes, we are not likely to learn anything new. I started my career in the 1970s in a school that undoubtedly would now be one of the 50 with eleven years of issues with performance. Staffing was always an issue throughout the seven years I spent at the school. Not surprisingly, when falling rolls became an issue, it was one of the schools to be amalgamated out of existence. I wonder whether that will be the fate of some of these schools over the next few years?

 I am also remined of the book edited by Paul Marshall in 2013, and call ‘The Tail’ that discussed the issue of under-performance in schools across England. In the introduction he wrote that:

‘.. for good teachers to be deployed in the most challenging schools… reforms to the delivery and accountability of child and adolescent mental health services; and perhaps new types of dedicated provision for the tail.’ The Tail page 17.

No doubt RISE was one outcome, and it would also be interesting to know if any of the 50 schools with the longest eligibility have had access to support from the Teach First programme? We know almost everything there is to know about the pupils, but nowhere near enough about the teachers. Time for a rethink on the workings of the labour market for teachers?

What counts as terrorism?

Posted on by
Reply

Last month I wrote a blog post about the reasons why teachers have been barred so far this year from ‘teaching’ and ‘working with young people’ by their regulatory body.

The fact that a large number of protesters were arrested last weekend for supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation, made me think about how might the regulatory body approach any teacher with a criminal record for supporting a proscribed organisation?

Paul Harris, a human rights lawyer, has written an interesting article about the prescription of Palestine Action Why proscription of Palestine Action is a mistake | COUNSEL | The Magazine of the Bar of England and Wales In his view the prescription was too draconian a response.

I asked him about the position of teachers arrested protesting the proscription, and this was our exchange on LinkedIn:

John Howson Paul, Thank you for writing this. I wonder whether the Teaching Regulatory body would disbar someone from teaching for the act of terrorism of holding up a placard?

Paul HarrisAuthor Barrister and senior counsel at Doughty Street Chambers, Cornwall Street Chambers, Erik Shum Chambers, Hong Kong

John
Maybe not for just holding up a placard if they were not charged. But if convicted of an offence of supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation because of holding up the banner then it seems to me the Teaching Regulatory Body would have little choice but to disbar.

I am not sure why a Labour government took the decision it did over Palestine Action. It is interesting to compare it with how the Conservative government behaved when Extinction Rebellion were protesting by both sitting down on motorways and through other types of disruptive protest.

Following on from Paul Harris’s comment, I think that any direct action protest, and the actions of Extinction Rebellion supporters was seen as just that, and punishable under existing laws raises interesting questions. Did the behaviour of the courts in Extinction Rebellion cases set a precedent for state action over protests. There is, I suppose, a question mark over any such precedent when the direct action involves defence assets, such as airplane engines.

However, even if direct action could be seen as terrorism, I don’t think reacting to the government’s decision to prescribe and organisation by supporting the existence of the banned group through holding up a placard makes those that take that action guilty of terrorism.

However, in the light of Paul’s comment, my guess is that any teacher holding up a banner with any reference to Palestine Action might well be risking their career in the present circumstances, even if they are doing so in their own time, and nowhere near their place of work.

Clearly, it is time for the professional associations to engage with the Secretary of State for Education, both in her cabinet role, and in her role as a possible candidate for the post of deputy leader of The Labour Party, to ensure peaceful protest is not classed as terrorism, even in support of a banned organisation.

The idea of a Labour Secretary of State for Education supporting a regulatory body’s decision to bar a teacher for holding up a placard is not one I ever expect to have to consider on this blog.

Virtual Schools have a key role

Posted on by
Reply

Do you know what a Virtual School is? I will assume that regular readers of this blog will know, but for the newcomer or casual readers, it is the local authority service that provides support for the education of both Looked After Children, and those children previously looked after. Recently the role of the service has been extended to include all children with a social worker and, even more recently, children in kinship care.

In many respects the virtual school embodies the very essence of local authority Children’s Services, bringing together support for children in need and their education.  In that respect, it is disappointing that too often the Head of the Virtual School is often only a third-tier officer not reporting directly to the Director of Children’s Services.

The extension of the work of virtual schools to include children with a social worker has been the subject of a recent research report looking at the outcomes of extending the role of the virtual school to encompass all children with a social worker.

Evaluation of the Extension of Virtual School Heads’ Duties to Children with a Social Worker Final Report

The report indicated that attendance, and the consequences of challenging behaviour – suspensions and exclusions – have featured significantly in the work of virtual schools with this new group of young people. Improved attainment, has been less of an outcome. The effects of covid-19 on both attendance and exclusions may well have meant less resources for improving attainment of this group; or that improving attainment may just take longer, and be a consequence of improvements in attendance. Either way, I would have liked to see more discussion about the age at which a child is linked to a social worker, and whether it is easier in the primary sector than the secondary schools to improve attainment?

In many ways, the report makes disappointing reading more than 15 years after the government department at Westminster responsible for education added children’ services to its remit under the last Labour government.

Too often there has been a lack of awareness of the educational needs of these vulnerable young people on the part of schools and social workers, and a real lack of data to allow effective tracking of such young people’s education attainments, partly because of data protection issues.

 I understand that concern, and there is an interesting vignette in the report of child that had a social work for a brief period because of domestic abuse being offered extra maths teaching by their new school because of having been a ‘child in need’ for a brief period. The mother had hoped for a new beginning at a new school. This illustrates the complexity of the challenges in working with these young people and their families.

Many ofsted reviews of Children’s Services highlight challenges with inter-service working, and this report also has concerns. My worry is that in education, the growth of MATs and the downgrading of local authority roles, has made it more challenging for the development of policy around the education for all children with a social worker. The almost total absence of any contribution for elected cabinet members to the review worries my immensely. As with the NHS, local political input is seen as of little effect and not worth considering.

Personally, I think that view is wrong, and a strong local political sense of place in both education and social work with children is vital, as those that have read my demand over the years for Jacob’s Law, and the success of the Clause in the new Bill on in-year admissions will understand.

Serendipity Part 2

Posted on by
Reply

I mentioned in my previous post that yesterday I had been reading a random volume of the TES in a library and had found comments about special needs and the transfer of funding to schools after the 1988 Education Reform Act. I am grateful to the Chief Finance Officer at a leading MAT who straightaway sent me an article about funding of schools in Edmonton, Alberta in 1990. Thanks for the article, and for reading my blog.

In the same volume of the TES, I also discovered, again quite by accident, an article I had written and sent to the TES. I think it was my earliest contribution to the TES, and one I had completely forgotten about.

I have reproduced it here so I once again have it my collection, and also because of the up-coming budget in November that might be one for growth rather than business, and if so,  might the Chancellor risk overlooking any consequences for teachers and other public sector workers in any dash for growth?

Bad business for teaching

Chancellor Lamont’s budget for business is bad news for teachers. Like many public sector workers they will be reflecting that the new share option schemes and the 6p off the basic rate of tax which can now be earned through profit-related pay schemes will benefit their friends in the private sector without offering any incentives to them. However, if these changes help to bring down the level of basic pay settlements in the private sector then they will directly affect the level at which next year’s pay settlement for teachers is fixed; teachers could find themselves losers all round.

As consumers of large amounts of in-service training, teachers might have expected to benefit from the new tax relief on vocational training. But the present proposals only refer to national vocational qualification awards and will be of no use to the many teachers who currently pay for their own studies. This will particularly affect married women seeking to return to teaching who often need to finance further studies before they can regain a teaching post. This clause needs urgent consideration during the passage of the Finance Bill to ensure teachers are not seriously disadvantaged as an occupational group.

Finally, the increase in petrol duty and the associated rise in VAT may well have serious consequences for the already fragile labour market for teachers. Many schools are some distance from public transport, in housing estates or rural villages with only one bus a week. The increase in petrol prices may make it more difficult to attract teachers to work in these schools.

If Kenneth Clarke [then SoS for Education] saw the drift of the budget proposals before last week’s Cabinet meeting then he must accept responsibility for their effect on the teaching profession. Undoubtedly, however, our archaic system of placing the Chancellor on ice for a period before he delivers his budget has probably meant that in their enthusiasm for delivering a ‘budget for business’ the Treasury team has ignored the effect of their changes on those who work in the public sector, and particularly in education.

These days there is much more transparency about possible budget proposals, so fewer rabbits are pulled out of the hat on budget day. However, the bus that ran once a week, probably disappeared many years ago, but petrol duty hasn’t risen in line with inflation, and electric cars now offer an alternative. By the way, how many schools have EV charging points in their car parks, and do MATs offer a salary sacrifice scheme to help with the purchase of an electric vehicle? Is there an electric mini-bus schools can purchase? And I didn’t write the headline.

Special Needs – is nothing new?

Posted on by
Reply

Serendipity is defined as a fortunate finding of something unexpected. The origin of the term is credited to Horace Walpole. Earlier this afternoon, while waiting for some data on ITT statistics from the early 1990s that were being brought up from the reserve stacks of a library, I browsed through a bound volume of the TES for March 1991 that happened to be available.

The TES for the 22nd March 1991 contained a report of the annual conference of educational psychologist, the spring being education conference season even then. The report contained the following report

‘The government confirmed that there has been a widespread increase in the number of children referred for special help to support the claims of educational psychologists who believe that their numbers have increased by 50%. … Anthea Millett HMI for special needs said many local authorities reported an increase in referrals for assessment by educational psychologists.’ (TES 22/3/91 page 3)

One reason suggested was that as schools were becoming liable for their own budgets under local management of schools that had been set out in the 1988 Education Reform Act, schools were more anxious to obtain the statutory help that a statement of special needs brought with it.

Interestingly, in 1990, over 100 MPs had signed an Early Day motion in the House of Commons to the effect that ‘many children in urgent need of help and advice from an educational psychologist are waiting unacceptable lengths of time’.  (TES 22/3/91 P3)

In an editorial in the same edition as the news item referred to above, it was claimed that devolution of funds to schools had exposed the crudeness of existing formula for special needs that had made proper funding for children with special needs a lottery for schools, and that the 1988 Education Reform Act had not paid attention to the needs of children with special needs. The prediction that children with special needs would be a casualty of the Act was now coming true.

All of this seems very reminiscent of the current situation of a growth in demand and concerns over the funding for that growth, as does the analysis in the editorial that devolving funds to schools had allowed schools to identify many children with needs not being met that required extra funding.

As the editorial concluded, ‘The pre-LMS discretionary targeting of resources by LEAs according to putative need was often little more than a system of rationing inadequate funds. Those with the most efficient advocates or most obvious handicaps (sic) got first pickings. The rest got little or nothing – often not even a proper assessment.’ (TES 22/3/91 P21)

Reading this bit of history, reminded me of the present explosion in demand for EHCPs as schools struggled with demand they felt was not funded. This time around, local authorities faced with the 2014 Act opted for running up deficits rather than rationing, except that is by using the NHS favoured outcome of rationing by waiting time for assessments.

One wonders what the government has learnt about special needs funding over the past 35 years, and what the White Paper will do? Will it just tell schools to devote more of their resources to dealing with the issue? Or, will there by more cash – this seems unlikely, but one can but hope.

Back to the GTP? (Graduate Teacher Programme)?

Posted on by
Reply

The latest DfE notice updating those interested in tendering to run the Future High Potential Initial Teacher Training (HPITT) Programme ahead of the formal tender notice, to be issued on the 15th September raises some interesting questions.

The current brand name for the programme is Teach First. Since 2016, the programme has been subject to funding by the DfE following a tender process. Teach First started as a programme aimed at attracting teachers for schools in London that were facing recruitment issues. The need to improve outcomes in disadvantaged areas was also a part of the mission, as was attracting those that might not have thought of teaching as a career, but might be prepared to spend two years in the profession.

In the early years of Teach First there was the government alternative national employment-based route into teaching through the Graduate or Registered Teaching Programmes (GTP or RTP).

The information in the latest DfE document Future High Potential Initial Teacher Training (HPITT) Programme – Find a Tender feels as if the aim is to produce two coherent national programmes for employment-based routes into teaching. However, the document doesn’t seem to make clear the geographical intentions of the programme, preferring to reflect on schools and pupils instead.

i Support schools serving low-income communities with high numbers of disadvantaged and / or low attaining pupils (i.e. Eligible Schools) in England to recruit the teachers they need to help improve outcomes for pupils

ii. Target high-quality candidates with a 2:1 degree or above, who would be otherwise unlikely to join the profession or work in an Eligible School and who have the capability to be highly skilled teachers and emerging leaders, and who are passionate about making a meaningful impact, in these schools.

iii. Contribute to recruitment in specified subjects but with flexibility to meet the specific recruitment needs of schools.

The fact that only 1,000 places will be funded will make the geographical aspects of the contract a key feature. Do you offer the HPITT where the candidates will be or where the schools are located, given the programme is aimed at those that who would be otherwise unlikely to join the profession or work in an Eligible School. The latter point offers a high degree of flexibility, and it is interesting there is no mention of performance criteria or even what specifically constitutes an Eligible School.

Spread across nine regions, and both the primary and secondary sectors, a national scheme looks challenging to administer within the current funding offer specified in the documents. The programme might need either the support of a charity or a private sector firm willing to operate the scheme for the benefits it brings in working in the teacher recruitment market.  

The phrases about recruitment data are, of course, music to my ears. TeachVac pioneered identifying schools with recruitment issues over a decade ago. Those that have read my recent posts about headteacher vacancies in August will know that I still retain a key interest in this area. There are a multitude of posts on this blog about recruitment. Here is a link to just one of them. Some trends for 2019 in teacher recruitment | John Howson

The document asks for the following:

Develop and maintain strong partnerships with schools and other partners in areas with the greatest teacher recruitment challenges to understand and meet the needs of schools in terms of teacher recruitment and provide sufficient high-quality employment-based placement opportunities.

If any bidder wants to ask for my advice on how to understand the data about where the real recruitment challenges are, then I would be happy to advise.

The programme although entitled HPITT also includes some leadership work. This is presumably a carry-over from the current Teach First work, but I wonder whether there really ought to be two different contracts as the programmes are very different in scope.

The scope of the tender for the HPITT programme looks very much like evolution not revolution, but perhaps the DfE would have been better aiming for the latter if it really wants to improve standards in the worst performing schools in England.

10-year plan for teachers of Physics

Posted on by
4

I was delighted to read the Institute of Physics new 10-year plan for the teaching of physics in schools in England The physics teacher shortage and addressing it through the 3Rs: Retention, Recruitment and Retraining (England) As is to be expected from the IoP, this is a thoughtful and well argued report.

Some of the finding in this new report mirror those in the report published in January 2002 by Northumbria University, and funded by the then TTA. The Northumbria study, interestingly called ‘Supply, Recruitment and Retention of Physics Teachers’ was authored by Prof. Hilary Constable, and I was a part of the team that undertook the research underpinning the report.

Many of the conclusions in the IoP report sould apply to the whole teacher supply landscape. It is just that the labour market for teachers of physics, especially in non-selective state schools, is an extreme example of 30 years of failure to provide schools with the staff needed for the National Curriculum.

It is worth recalling that in the 2006 budget speech, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned 3,000 trainee science teachers needed as a part of the Science and innovation investment framework 2004-2014. So, the problem has been known for decades, the will to solve it has seen less drive behind it. I sincerely hope that the government takes the recommendations of the IoP report on board.

As someone that has studied the leacher labour market for more than 30 years, the idea of exit interviews has always seemed to me to be a missing a part of the picture. The DfE has wave studies with school leaders, teachers, pupils and parents, but not it seems leavers. I would be happy to manage a trial with the MATs and local authority HR department in one authority, to collect data. The Northumbria study did collect some data from early leavers, workload, the desire only to teach physics and a return to studying appear to be some of the common features of the findings.  I guess, not much has changed.

If I have a quibble with the IoP report, it would be on the table of salaries in the report. My guess is that financial services salaries are skewed by a ‘London’ effect and the teaching salary doesn’t fully record any incentives received by qualified physics teachers. I would also like to have seen how many of those with QTS are in Sixth Form Colleges and independent schools?

The idea of retraining is a sensible use of resources, as are subject knowledge enhancement courses for those considering becoming a teacher of physics, but lacking a degree specifically in the subject.

Overall, what the report demonstrates is the lack of a comprehensive strategy for the staffing of our schools and, since the demise of the TTA and its successors, no real centre for policy discussions. One wonders what the Chartered College of Teaching is doing in this field? The demise of the APPG for the Teaching Profession, supported by Chris Waterman for many years, left a vacuum for debate about teacher supply, even if Ministers chose not to listen. Hopefully, after this report, the secretary of State will act.

Views on behaviour in schools worsened in latest survey

Posted on by
Reply

It is rare for the DfE to publish research on a Saturday. This week it did so, presumably to allow the Secretary of State to do the rounds of the Sunday morning political shows. National Behaviour Survey: findings from academic year 2023 to 2024 The focus from Labour with the media seems initially to have been on attendance rather than behaviour, but that has changed with the announcement of behaviour and attendance hubs.

The reason may well be the deterioration in views about behaviour in schools reported in the last survey data collected in May 2024 when compared with the March 2023 data. It is difficult to remember that the data from May 2024 was collected under the previous Conservative government. (Figures in the table are percentages.)

QUESTIONGROUPMar-23Dec-23Mar-24May-24
MY SCHOOL CALM & ORDERLYLeadership84938581
Teachers57716053
SAFE PLACE FOR PUPILSTeachers95999696
Leadership82938885
PUPILS RESPECT EACH OTHERLeadership88969088
PUPILS ENJOY SCHOOLALL PUPILS75817673
FEEL SAFEALL PUPILS57656157
BELONGALL PUPILS43455349
PUPIL BEHAVIOUR VG or GLeadership82908172
Teachers55695546
Pupils43433540

In many key questions, such as whether the school is orderly and calm, and whether pupil behaviour is good or very good, the positive percentages have seen significant declines. It is not surpassing that leaders see pupils as better behaved than either their teachers or their pupils. It would be interesting to see how long those school leaders concerned about pupil behaviour had been in post. I doubt many long serving leaders would admit to anything other than schools where pupil behaviour is good.

It would also be interesting to know whether the 12% of pupils that said’ things were thrown in ‘mist lesson’, (albeit not aggressively) were being taught in schools were behaviour was perceived as not ‘good’ or ‘very good’.

Why might views on behaviour have dropped in the last year of the Conservative government? Might the issues with teacher shortages have finally begun to have an effect? Was any effect from teacher shortages compounded by deteriorating staffing levels and greater pupil numbers in secondary schools? Again, it would have been interesting to see some breakdown of the data by school types; free school meal percentages and number of pupils with EHCP. If the behaviour hubs are to have any effects, these are the types of questions that need to be asked.

A question might also be asked about the wisdom of axing Teaching Schools. The current government could do with a comprehensive and cost-effective professional development policy rather than leaving it to individual schools and those MATs that see it as a priority.

Earlier this month I wrote a post about discipline in schools Is discipline worse in schools? | John Howson The evidence for that post came from exclusions. As a result, I wasn’t unduly worried. This new data raises more cause for concern.

Think Tank weighs in on SEND

Posted on by
Reply

Policy Exchange, the Think Tank that describes itself as ‘the UK’s leading think tank’, and ‘an independent, non-partisan educational charity whose mission is to develop and promote new policy ideas that will deliver better public services, a stronger society and a more dynamic economy.’ Has published a new report on SEND, with a foreword by a former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The report contains a great deal of interesting evidence, much of which will already be know to anyone that has been involved with the emerging crisis in SEND that was already apparent from well before the covid crisis hit in 2020. Policy Exchange – Out of Control

A telling paragraph in the report lays bare the need for action

The SEND system established by the Children and Families Act 2014 and the 2015 SEND Code of Practice is inefficient, ineffective and has failed to deliver improved outcomes for children with SEND. Fundamental flaws have created perverse incentives for actors in the system. The current SEND regime was designed to support a much smaller number of acute cases. It has failed to adapt to changing social definitions of SEND that have widened demand. Instead, the concentration of resources and bespoke support at the top end of the spectrum has prompted an escalation of needs which has overwhelmed the system and undermined its long term sustainability. (Page 66).

The paragraph leaves one wondering why the Conservative government that was responsible for the 2014 Act didn’t take action to deal with the problem when in office?

In December 2018, I wrote a blog SEND on the agenda again | John Howson drawing attention to a report from the Local Government Association. There was already concern in local government circles about what was happening in SEND. It is worth repeating the key points from the LGA report.

Addressing the points raised in paragraph 17 of the Report would go a long way to creating a sustainable and successful system for young people with SEND.

  1. To create a more sustainable funding settlement going forward there may be merit in considering some key questions around how incentives in the system might be better aligned to support inclusion, meet needs within the local community of schools, and corral partners to use the high needs block to support all young people with SEND as a collective endeavour. These might include
  2. setting much clearer national expectations for mainstream schools;
  3. rethinking how high stakes accountability measures reflect the achievements of schools which make good progress with children and young people with SEND or at risk of exclusion;
  4. correcting the perverse funding incentives that mean that it can be cheaper to pass the cost of an EHCP or a permanent exclusion onto the high needs block than making good quality preventative support available in-school;
  5. looking again at the focus and content of EHCPs to afford greater flexibility to schools in how they arrange and deliver the support needed;
  6. providing ring-fenced investment from government designed explicitly to support new and evidence-based approaches to early intervention and prevention at scale;
  7. providing additional capital investment and flexibility about how that can be deployed by local government;
  8. issuing a national call for evidence in what works for educating children and young people with these needs, backed up by sufficient funding to then take successful approaches to scale and a new focus for teacher training and ongoing professional development;
  9. more specific advice for Tribunals, parents and local authorities on how the test on efficient use of resources can be applied fairly when comparing state and non-state special school placements; and
  10. reaffirming the principle around the equitable sharing of costs between health and education where these are driven by the health needs of the child or young person.   

https://www.local.gov.uk/have-we-reached-tipping-point-trends-spending-children-and-young-people-send-england

Failures by the conservative government up to 2024 to provide enough educational psychologists to meet the growing demand, and to not index-link the basic grant to schools helped produced a system where the explosion in demand broke the system.

While any report with an analysis of the problem and suggestions for how to tackle it, ahead of the present government’s White Paper, is welcome, we should not have reached the current position.  

One final point, the report seems light on the issue of training for all staff from TAs to teachers to school leaders. The lack of an appreciation of the needs of those that work in schools has been another feature of the long period of Conservative government.

I look forward to see what the Labour government’s White Paper will suggest when it appears.

DfE wasting money on ITT

Posted on by
Reply

The latest data on applications to postgraduate ITT courses appeared this morning. Such are the wonders of modern technology that data generated on the 18th of August can be programmed to appear on the bank holiday Monday in order to keep up the sequence of posting the data on the last Monday of the month by the DfE. Initial teacher training application statistics for courses starting in the 2025 to 2026 academic year – Apply for teacher training – GOV.UK

As is already known, 2025 is going to be best year for recruitment to graduate teacher preparation courses since 2013, especially in many traditional shortage subjects, such as the sciences and mathematics. But it is not ’a bed of roses’ all round.

AUGUST 2025 OFFER
SUBJECT202420252025 TARGETDIFF ON 2024DIFF TO TARGET
CLASSICS665360-13-7
ENGLISH239920801950-319130
RE494491780-3-289
  
OTHERS454472252018-2048
DRAMA29833762039-283
MUSIC37840756529-158
COMPUTING642884895242-11
D&T68076496584-201
BUS STUDIES25232490072-576
 
PE16751734725591009
ART & DESIGN8711087680216407
HISTORY9631100790137310
MATHEMATICS259730042300407704
MFL149816771460179217
GEOGRAPHY9421093935151158
CHEMISTRY9201054730134324
PHYSICS128516771410392267
BIOLOGY14151600985185615

Three subjects have recorded fewer offers this year than last year. Two, classics and drama, will miss their target. In English it would be touch and go to meet the target by the date of the ITT census in early December from just this source of trainees. However, Teach First and other routes should mean that the target will be comfortably met. But, the applications patterns for 2026 will need careful monitoring.

Five subjects won’t meet their targets this year, even with Teach First. Computing should, although it hasn’t yet done so from the courses included in this dataset.  

The remaining subjects have all recorded increased offers this year and, in most cases, are way over target. This raises the question about whether or not the DfE should once again consider recruitment controls in some subjects. After all, although we will need teachers to cover the missing trainees in the group of ‘other’ subjects, will the 1,000 extra PE teachers offered places over the target have the appropriate skill sets to fill those vacancies? They are certainly unlikely to fill the music vacancies, but presumably could be offered business studies teaching.

Hopefully, the DfE will be matching up to date vacancy data with the targets generated from historical data to see what changes might be needed for 2026 entry.  After all, there isn’t money to waste in the public exchequer.

There also appears to be over supply in the primary sector

SUBJECT202420252025 TARGETDIFF ON 2024DIFF TO TARGET
PRIMARY106101140576507953755

But I wonder whether, as in some secondary subjects, some candidates are recorded holding more than one offer. Even so, this is a sizeable overshoot and may cause issues next September in some parts of the country for trainees seeking teaching posts in primary schools. Especially, if a combination of falling rolls and a reluctance to move jobs in a deteriorating labour market overall sees fewer posts advertised.

I believe that Ministers need to do some hard thinking about balancing supply and demand for teachers and the cost to the public purse.