Vocational education: Closing doors or widening opportunities?

The education of young people has had quite an airing over the past week. At the Liberal Democrats conference, Munira Wilson MP, the Party’s Education spokesperson at Westminster, gave a platform speech that foreshadowed the announcement by Lucy Powell, the Secretary of State, about post-14 vocational education.

You can see Munira’s speech on YouTube. I suggest starting at 1 hour 38 minutes into the video lib dem conference 2026 autumn saturday afternoon session – Search

In her speech, Munira raised one of the key dilemmas of education. How to promote ambition without encouraging many young people to leave their communities to seek to achieve their ambitions? Many that leave our rural and coastal communities (the source of another debate at the conference) to fulfil an educational ambition, often at university, never return.

I believe that governments should be encouraging these young people to return and set up businesses in rural and coastal communities as part of regeneration schemes.

Labour’s,  Lucy Powell’s, focus was one the perennial issue within the British education system: how to resolve classroom and practical subjects at examination level in terms of parity of esteem? Labour answer is to recreate courses for 14-16 year olds in practical subjects, such as construction, care and business. New Vocational GCSEs unveiled in major shake-up to hands-on learning for teens – GOV.UK

In 2003, I wrote a paper for the Liberal Democrats entitled ‘No child left behind’ – a phrase borrowed from US President Bush – in which I advocated a 14-18 sector. I recognised that many young people at 14 were disillusioned with school, but might be brought back into education if they were offered courses more aligned with their career ambitions. Now, I understand Munira’s point that at 14 she wanted to be a teacher, but as a graduate went into a different career. Munira no doubt already wanted to go to university at 14.

But, what of those, the Newsom 50%, Half Our Future: A tribute to Sir John Newsom’s Report | John Howson  that don’t aspire to stay in education. At what age should we help them on the path to a working life? In 2003, I suggested links with further education, and its more grown- up approach and better facilities than many schools can provide for practical courses.

Labour’s announcement this week, ahead of their conference, seemed a bit rushed. Nothing about where to find the staff to teach  these new vocational subjects in schools? Nothing about the issue of ‘norm’ referencing in examinations. How do you ‘norm reference’ the building of a wall in a construction class or the creation of a meal in a hospitality course? Trying to create national standards will be a real challenge.

Both Munira, and then Lucy Powell, did speak about the need for more work experience in schools. Again, this is something that I support wholeheartedly, but again how do we deal with the limited opportunities in our rural and coastal communities? As so often in education, it will come down to who will pay for the transport?

However, NEETs are not just an education issue. Any government that is responsible for an economy that is not producing jobs for either young people of those made redundant in their 40s and 50s, has two choices, either benefits or some form of education and training provision, if it wants to keep down the numbers unemployed. With AI likely to recreate the job scene in a new format, the issue of the relationship between education and employment isn’t going to go away anytime soon.

Schools in rural and coastal areas: issues and concerns

Today was the first day of the Liberal Democrats annual conference. This year it is being held in Brighton. A motion today was about rural and coastal education and the need to recognise the issues children and young people living in these areas face.

I was privileged to be call to speak in the debate. What follows is the text of my speech: for what I actually said, please go to the recording at: Autumn Conference 2026 – Saturday Morning – YouTube at 1:22:10 for the next 4 minutes.

Rural & Coastal Education

Conference, I have sympathy with this motion but, while like all of you I know what ‘rural’ means, I am less sure about what ‘coastal’ means. Does the term include cities such as Liverpool, Hull and Brighton, and are they markedly different to Manchester, Sheffield and Birmingham? As a one-time geography teacher, I need to think carefully about what are the locations such a place-based policy might exclude.

Sadly, the motion doesn’t have much our MPs can campaign on. So, here’s three ideas linked to the spirit of the motion for them to campaign upon and that voters will understand.

Raise the free Home to school transport age  to 18 to bring it into line with the learning leaving age. This will end the cliff edge at 16. Ensure everyone can get to college to study the course they want. Raising the £1 fare maximum age from 16 to 21 would be a start.

Importantly, revise the 2006 Education Act to include Academies or watch Academy Trusts close schools without any controls.

Look at taxation, such as motor insurance tax for those in rural and coastal areas forced by a lack of public transport to use a moped or car, but too young to have any ‘no claims bonus’. This tax is a penalty on learning for these young people, and a real disincentive to study.

Finally, much of both local authority and parent’s school transport cash goes back to the government in taxation. Urban authorities don’t pay this fuel tax, and neither should rural areas.

Living in a rural area should not mean a tax on learning for young people. Ater all, they don’t have a choice.

Conference on education, The message is simple, the message is clear, the message is from the Liberal Democrats:

Equal access to Education for Everyone.

Please support the motion.

The motion was passed both by the audience in the hall and the delegates following on-line.

Is the Teachers’ Pay Award fully funded or not?

Earlier this week, the Secretary of State wrote to the National Education Union(NEU)  about funding for the Teachers Pay Settlement. I cannot find the text of the letter on the DfE’s website, but the NEU helpfully stated that:

The NEU has secured through negotiations with the Secretary of State for Education a fully funded pay increase for all teachers throughout England. This is a significant step. In a letter to the General Secretary of the NEU Lucy Powell outlined her proposals for funding alongside a willingness to address issues around accountability, workload, and well-being. NEU secures from Government full funding for teacher pay offer | National Education Union

Since then, doubts have been cast upon whether there is enough money for a ‘fully funded’ pay rise for all teachers. Given that the NEU was considering industrial action over pay, this statement looked like a real win for the Union.

However, this announcement was never likely to create produce a ‘fully funded’ pay increase because of the manner in which the National Funding Formula for schools operates. Schools have different mixes of staff salaries, some have many inexperienced teachers near the bottom of the main scale, whereas other schools have many long-serving teachers at the top of the Upper Pay Spine. Schools also differ in how they reward additional activities with Teaching and Learning responsibility points (TLRs). The Formula cannot take these differences into account.

Asa result, some schools would be more than fully funded and other left still needing to find the rest of the pay award.

Subsequently, it seems that the DfE assumed that the funding for the pay award will come for the saving schools experience as a result of the reduction in the employer’s contribution to the non-teaching staff pension scheme: the LGPS. That seems like wishful thinking to many commentators, including myself.

First there are a number of LGPS Pools, with different outcomes, and hence different rates of employer contribution. As a result, a school with a high percentage of staff at the top of the Upper Pay Spine, few support staff and located in an LGPS fund with one of the higher contribution rates will fare far less well  from this announcement than a school with the opposite profile.

Also, making an announcement in September mean that every school budget is already set, and the only spare cash is in any ‘contingency’ line on the budget. The DfE should know that fact. As a result, this announcement looks like either something of a face-saving act or another of the Labour government’s gross miscalculations. Either way, it seems likely many schools, if not most, will have given only a faint cheer on hearing the announcement, if they managed to raise a cheer at all.

I am told that the DfE clawed back the savings from reductions in employers’ contributions to the Teachers Pension Scheme. Unlike LGPS, where there are real schemes, with investments than can go up and down, the TPS, like the Civil Service Pension Fund, doesn’t actually exist as a fund, but is held by The Treasury as a notional fund.

Social mobility and the far right

The announcement that that Social Mobility Commission is to be abolished was announced when I was on holiday. As a result, I have only just caught up with news of its demise – one of the few QUANGOs to escape previous culls. While the term ‘class’ for its replacement within the civil service may be more ‘in your face’ than ‘social mobility’, I suppose it fits better with the debate about ‘White working class boys’ that has featured in many discussions about educational attainment during the past decade.

I am sad to see the Commission abolished. Taking work back into government departments inevitably makes policy discussion less transparent, and places greater emphasis on the work of think tanks. The Commission has had something of a chequered history, as might be expected given its role and the fact that rt worked under a Conservative government for most of its life. I documented one such event in this blog post from 2017 Social Mobility Commission | John Howson that interestingly also mentioned AI, and the risk of the rise of the ‘far right’.

‘With the IT revolution once again picking up speed, and predications of massive job losses from the growth in Artificial Intelligence awakening the Luddite mentality in many of us, the Commission must act not only as the government’s conscience on social mobility, but also as a source of genuine new policies that are radical and forward thinking. More of the same just won’t work.

We have seen in Germany that the failure to ensure the success of the economy across the whole country has inevitably led to the rise of the far right in politics. Social mobility is important, but we cannot ignore those left behind. They must not become the poor relations kept, for ever, out of sight.’ Social Mobility Commission | John Howson Still, it is sad to see a Labour government abolish it.

I had a number of discussions with officials at the commission over the years, most notably about teacher supply matters. The following post followed the publication of one of the Commission’s reports in 2019  We cannot ignore those left behind | John Howson and also shows that, even under Conservative control, those of us from all political parties concerned about the issue of deprivation and education were able to have our voice heard: such is the value of good quality scrutiny.

One of the key outputs from the Social Mobility Commission was its annual State of the Nation Report. It will be a disappointment to lose that scrutiny, and I hope civil servants will either want to continue it or ask The Office for National Statistics to take it over. Here are a couple of links to my blog posts about the report:

Class rules: not OK | John Howson

Industrial revolutions alter a country’s geography | John Howson

Birds of a feather | John Howson

As I write this on a Sunday morning, I am reminded of the phrase in Matthew’s gospel at Chapter 26 and Verse 11: ‘The poor you will always have with you.’

That statement is not an admission of defeat, but a call to arms’. Abolishing the Social Mobility Commission must not weaken our mission for a more equal society. Now, I wonder where that advocation will feature any policy resulting from the spending of the £76 million pounds received by a political party this week?

Music Teachers: demand and supply

As part of its  monthly review of applications by graduates to train as a teacher, this blog has often commented upon the issue of whether there will be sufficient new teachers of music. This blog has also condemned the withdrawal of the bursary for music by the Labour government.

Recent posts include:

Don’t let this government kill off music in state schools. | John Howson July 2026

Music ITT: has the government made a mistake? | John Howson June 2026

Reviving Music Teacher Bursaries: A Necessity | John Howson

These posts are all related to the supply side of the question about how many music teachers are needed each year to staff the state school system in England. The DfE answers that question using the Teacher Supply Model, basically an algorithm using past data that can be problematic when future needs don’t follow past trends.

For most of the period between 2015 and July 2026, I have been tracking actual demand for music teachers in state schools, as recorded through advertisements. Tracking adverts has the added advantage of not only assessing demand for classroom teachers, but also looks at trends for subject leaders in music, and the extent to which they are part of larger groupings of arts and creative subjects. Tracking vacancies can also highlight areas where demand is not being met easily, but highlighting where vacancies are being re-advertised.

I have already posted a couple of blogs so far this year on demand:

Labour market for music teachers: update to end of April 2026 | John Howson

Demand for music teachers: where were the jobs in early 2026? | John Howson

During the summer, I have been working on a report considering a number of factors around the vacancies for music teachers. The report:

The Demand for teachers of music: January to August 2026

Is now available from dataforeducation@gmail.com

Part of the conclusion to the report states that;

‘It will not be known until December 2026 as to whether trainee numbers are sufficient to meet the needs of schools after taking into account the number of returners to teaching. However, the fact that some 20% of posts were readvertised during the survey period does point to some pressure on the pool of possible applicants. There certainly seems to be only a small reserve at best. ‘

Music is an important art of the nation’s cultural heritage and identity, and the State, through schooling, has an important part to play in recognising the breadth and depth of that heritage, and encouraging future generations to continue and develop it in ways never imagined when I was at school.

To ensure a pipeline for the future, especially if university departments continue to axe music degrees, then the music community in schools should consider creating a teaching apprenticeship for those young people that are good at music and might want to become a teacher. Creative thinking about developing future teachers of music is an imperative. Now, who will take the lead? The new National Centre? Unlikely? So, it is up to the community, and perhaps MusicMark to think deeply about the issue of where the next generation of teachers of music will come from in a changing world of higher education. A teaching conservatoire?

Teacher retention versus recruitment: not just a matter of economics

This week, the Education Policy Institute (EPI), a think tank with left leanings, published another report about the value of ensuring teachers don’t leave the profession compared with trying to boost recruitment. Their latest report is called Retain or Recruit? Microsoft Word – EPI_RetrainRecruit_September2026 and follows on from their earlier report on a similar topic, reviewed in my blog post from 2022, ‘Keeping Science Teachers in Schools Keeping science teachers in schools | John Howson Both EPI reports were supported by The Gatsby Foundation, a body that has a long and honourable history of supporting research in this field.

The latest EPI report makes three recommendations:

Fund a specialist-equivalent retraining programme

Close the data gaps on completion, post-programme teaching, and demand

Add retraining alongside bursary policy, not in place of it

Microsoft Word – EPI_RetrainRecruit_September2026 page 53.

I am all in favour of re-training, if there are the teachers with sufficient knowledge, skills and desire to retrain to do so located in the schools that need them. After all, with an open labour market for teachers, using price as a mechanism for attracting teachers to work in schools without teachers capable of delivering physics at an advanced level hasn’t worked.

However, the EPI  report does need to be set into the current context of falling pupil numbers that will eventually affect the size of sixth forms. As I demonstrated in an earlier post, Are small sixth forms a good idea? | John Howson small sixth forms often don’t perform well. Is it worth making sure any first tranche of retrained teachers would be in schools with a viable future, and the possibility of a credible ‘A’ Level programme? However, this is a much wider issue than just teaching  physics to ‘A’ level that a future government may need to deal with at some stage.

I am all in favour of ensuring we know who teachers what to whom, and indeed what isn’t being taught in some schools because of the lack of a qualified teacher. I wonder whether this information already exists within the School Workforce database? If not, some sampling of schools might be useful. The 1999 study that I participated in showed that ‘Teaching ‘A’ Level physics was an important driver in retention of early career teachers. I guess it might also be for those retrained.  We know for ‘A’ Level entries the schools not currently entering any candidates for the subject.

It is also worth recalling the EPI previously visited this issue in 2018, as I noted in my blog post Pay physics teachers more than history teachers? | John Howson when the issue of differential pay was discussed. Mechanisms around recruitment and retention incentives and equal pay for jobs of equal worth can bedevil that debate.

Finally, it is worth considering whether programme such as Teach First have a better rate of retention than other ITT routes, including apprenticeships and salaried schemes.

We all want more teachers of physics, so I hope that decision-makers consider the EPI approach seriously, as they did with pre-ITT course subject enhancement courses.

Can the government afford to reorganise local government?

Is local government reform dead in the water? Plans for major overhaul of councils halted – BBC News Council officials that have spent the summer putting in place arrangements for new shadow council elections next May, will either be delighted or annoyed at the waste of precious resources or upset that the changes have been delayed.

The government cites new legal advice. I assume this means that they have been told that they would lose any Judicial Review of the process to reach the current stage of reorganisation.

I wonder whether the Treasury has taken a look at the proposals and said that the changes wouldn’t save money, and might cost more to operate the same services. Take Oxfordshire, where the proposals were for three unitary councils, each with a director of Children’s Services, at an extra cost of perhaps £300,000 plus on-costs for three Directors compared to the current one for the county. Multiply that by 17 councils, and that’s probably £3mn just for Children’s Services. Add just five new directors for other services that cannot be absorbed into the role of existing district council officer’s jobs, and the bill start to look very much like an expensive exercise. This is even before you add in the cost of Mayors for most of these areas.

So, what looks like a good example of poorly planned reorganisation of councils, is starting to look like an expensive waste of money. Hard luck on Surrey, whether the former county has already been split into two unitary councils, just as happened to Northamptonshire after the former county ran into financial trouble.

I cannot say that I am sorry for the pause, and will also not be sorry if reorganisation is kicked into the long grass, as I am not sorry. The prospect of funding fin Children’s services for areas with high needs for both SEND and children in care, being funded in the future only by a small number of council tax payers rather than spreading the cost over a wider area, as at present, was a frightening prospect.

Unless the current pause is short-lived, and that seems unlikely if the process was flawed, then even 2028 for a restart of shadow elections looks like a remote possibility.

Sorting out the relationship between councils and academies is a much bigger priority for me than shifting the arrangements for school admissions and other functions between existing and new councils.

I guess some officers may be looking at promotion opportunities disappearing, but I also guess councillors in Rutland, the smallest county, will be overjoyed, as may be those councillors nearer home in West Berkshire, as they may well be able to remain as a separate unitary council rather than being swallowed up into the new Ridgeway Council.

However, everyone will really want an outcome decided, as a pause is in nobody’s interest, whatever their outcome might be.

An analysis of headteacher vacancies across state schools in England between 1st August 2025 and 31st July 2026.

Author: John Howson of dataforEducation

Executive Summary

  • A review of headteacher turnover in state funded schools between 1st August 2025 and 31st July 2026.
  • Data collected from DfE Vacancy site and other job boards.
  • 1,407 schools recorded as advertising for a headteacher.
  • 1,639 advertisements including re-advertisements, a similar number to a decade ago.
  • 1,008 Primary Sector; 291 Secondary Sector and 107 Special Sector schools were recorded as advertising for a headteacher.
  • 6% of Primary Sector; 8% of Secondary Sector and 10% of Special Sector schools were recorded as advertising for a headteacher.
  • Yorkshire & The Humber and East of England Regions recorded the highest percentage of secondary sector headteacher vacancies re-advertised. No re-advertisements for a secondary school headteacher were recorded in the North East Region.
  • More than 100 secondary schools offered a starting salary in excess of £100,000.
  • The East of England, East Midlands and South West regions recorded the highest rates of primary sector headteacher vacancies re-advertised.
  • This year, thirty-one primary schools and two nurseries had a salary range starting below £60,000.
  • Re-advertisement rates for special schools were higher than in the other two sectors.
  • Faith schools were more likely to readvertise a headteacher vacancy than non-faith schools. This is not a new finding.
  • Vacancies advertised between August and November are most likely to be re-advertised.

For a full copy of the report, email: dataforeducation@gmail.com

ITT crisis not yet over

What does it take to ensure all training places for graduates wanting to be a teacher are filled. The best chance of sufficient trainees is when the school population is in decline, the job market is challenging for graduates – especially new graduates – and existing teachers are not exiting the profession at the same rate as previously.

The current ITT position is governed by the fact that school rolls are falling, so fewer new teachers are needed; the graduate job market is beginning to feel the consequences of AI, or it may be for graduates in some subjects, such as computing. Although teachers leaving the profession, net of returners, has not changed much, the opportunities for teachers to work outside of England and not pay back their student loans is probably still increasing.

The 2026 targets for trainee numbers were cut by the DfE. We won’t know until the ITT census in December what the overall picture looks like, but the table below shows the position if all ‘accepted’ for courses covered by the DfE’s monthly statistics of numbers accepted were to turn up and be recorded in the 2026 ITT census.

Subject Target 2026/27 August offers Fill: August view August Accepted Fill on Accepted August
Chemistry 690 1530 YES 1362 YES
Biology 675 679 PROBABLY 492 NO
Mathematics 2000 3141 YES 2720 YES
Design & Technology 620 741 YES 659 YES
Art & Design 605 756 YES 624 YES
Geography 685 589 NO 496 NO
Classics 75 47 NO 39 NO
English 1980 1900 POSSIBLY 1587 NO
Drama 370 338 POSSIBLY 279 NO
Business Studies 1200 379 NO 283 NO
Music 260 283 YES 238 NO
Religious Education 450 367 NO 308 NO
Others 2035 527 NO 424 NO
History 520 1166 YES 995 YES
Modern Languages 1085 1409 YES 1201 YES
Physics 810 1649 YES 1434 YES
Physical Education 655 1608 YES 1359 YES
Computing 565 1041 YES 876 YES

The column to consider is the final one for the number accepted by August 17th 2026 in the DfE monthly published statistics. Initial teacher training application statistics for courses starting in the 2025 to 2026 academic year – Apply for teacher training – GOV.UK

Despite the cuts to training places, some subjects are still unlikely to meet their reduced target, even though they have more trainees accepted than last year. However, the effect of AI may be seen in the increase in numbers accepted in computing.

The focus now should be on recruitment into the arts and social sciences, where some subjects only beat the target number by a very small margin, and others missed even the reduced requirement. Can the DfE afford to offer bursaries in these subjects without cutting the bursary elsewhere and risking a yo-yo effect of no bursary, a slump in applications.

Personally, I think al trainees should be treated equally, and that the DfE should not try to pick winners and losers. However, with funding tight, I cannot see that happening, even with a Secretary of State more likely to be sympathetic to teachers than some of her predecessors.

In passing, it is worth noting that applications from those in their 50s are below the numbers in the last cycle. All other groups have recorded increases, but for the ‘21 and under’ new graduates grouping, this is just 106 more applicants. For the 22-25 age groups it is just over 600 more application out a total of over 15,000.

The large increase in applications is for secondary courses, up from 38,169 in the last cycle to 43,365 this year. However, much of that increase has been fuelled by an increase in applicants from the ‘Rest of the world’ – up from 8,777 in the last cycle to 14,049 in this cycle, now accounting for more than 25% of applicants once those from the EEA are included in the total.

The September DfE data will be confirmatory, and few changes are expected that is unless those from overseas that have been ‘accepted’ fall foul of the government’s visa rules.

What of the class of 2027/28? With falling rolls, and the increasing effect of AI on jobs for new graduates, it seems likely a new golden age for teacher training may be dawning. However, this will result in casualties among providers: not all will survive.

This blog called the start of the supply crisis in 2013, and was condemned by the DfE for doing so. Perhaps it might be rewarded for charting what has happened over the next 13 years, and its predication for the future? But somehow I doubt it.

Paying for a free press

This is the latest of my August holiday posts. Somehow, even on holiday on the other side of the world, education stories worth commenting upon still appear. Last Monday (17TH August), The Sydney Morning Herald carried an opinion piece headed, ’Good education ideas need the right execution’.

Interestingly, the story was about the success of the Multi Academy Programme in raising education standards in England. The author of the piece stated that ‘A key enabler of England’s progress has been the Multi-Academy Trust (MAT). He added that  ‘Rather than every school running its own back office, finance, HR and administration those functions are shared across the group’.

The author concluded that the creation of MATs allows teachers to spend more time on teaching and learning, and, hence on raising standards. In essence, this is a critique of the Thatcher government’s 1987 education reforms that took responsibility for schools away from democratically accountable local councils and, by devolving budgets to individual schools, made each school a small business in its own right.

I don’t disagree with Gant Rule’s basic thesis in his Sydney Morning Telegraph opinion piece that schools are better run as part of a larger organisation than as a small business. Where we part company is over the matter of local democratic oversight of schools.

Interestingly, opposite Mr Rules opinion piece in the newspaper is a full page advert placed by The McKinnon organisation that aims to ‘to strengthen the standard of political leadership and improve how our country is governed’.

It seems odd to me that an organisation championing such views about governance should sanction an opinion piece that seems to be in direct opposition to its stated values. This is because in England, MATs are subject to no local political control.

Additionally, a MAT might well have schools spread across the country and thus be in competition with other MATs for pupils and staff with no local accountability for any of its schools.

Indeed, regular readers of my blog will know of the campaign I supported to bring in-year admissions back into a single system rather than allowing MATs to drive a coach and horses through any sensible local planning. That privilege was certainly not in the spirit of improving how England’s education system was governed and was especially harmful for children taken into care and forced to change school mid-year (search for Jacob’s Law om johnohowson.wordpress for more details). The 2026 Education Act in England has returned all in-year admissions to the oversight of local authorities, a bonus for local democracy.

As a former county councillor, and cabinet member for Children’s Services, I am not unbiased in the discussions about who should run schools in England.

However, I find it interesting that a newspaper can publish an. opinion piece by Mr Rule opposite a full-page advertisement from the organisation Mr Rule co-founded. Perhaps the declaration that the piece is part of a partnership between the Herald newspaper and McKinnon makes it alright.  

Unlike Mr Rule, I believe that schools should serve their local communities, and that MATs rarely recognise that fact. Councillors can be voted out of office: CEOs of MATs are safe from local scrutiny. There must be some discussion about how democratic the MAT model of school governance is and how it fits into the McKinnon’s vision for the health of any democracy, either in England or Australia?