Category Archives: politics

Higher Education: markets v planning for the sector

Posted on by
Reply

I don’t often write about higher education, as, although I spent more than a decade running a large department in a university, and also writing about activity-based costings in higher education, I don’t consider myself well enough briefed to comment regularly.

There are exceptions to my self-imposed rule, and this post is one of those. What persuaded me to write this post was a link to this article Universities on the brink: Decoding the UK higher education funding crisis and the path forward | The Educationist

Now, for most of this century, and indeed the last decade of the previous century, higher education providers have been free to operate in a market, with limited government intervention, except in areas such as teacher education, and providing courses for both doctors and the professions allied to medicine.

As I discovered when running courses for new heads of departments in universities about how higher education funding worked, most academics had limited knowledge and often less interest in the subject when asked to take on running department: at that time; even Deans were often more interested in course quality than the financial health of the departments they headed.

Regardless of the reasons behind the current financial malaise, should the market be left to bring the sector back to financial equilibrium? Of course, the government could just throw money at the problem, but I guess it hasn’t the funds, and anyway, the DfE might put NEETs and SEND above bailing out universities in any priority list.

However, I don’t think the government should leave everything to the market. After all, it is the largest consumer of graduates: 30,000 teachers per year to be trained; NHS staff; the defence forces; the civil service and local government. These are all consumers of graduates in large numbers.

Allowing the market to solve the financial problems might have unintended consequences. A major concern for me is around the mobility of new graduates. Many years ago, I studied where trainee teachers went to study, and there was a correlation between where a first degree or higher-level courses was studied, and where individuals entered teacher preparation courses. Universities without schools of education provided fewer recruits to teaching.

Well, Teach First helped solve that problem, at least in London, but I am concerned that market driven course closures could leave parts of the country without degree courses in some subject areas vital for the public sector.

For this reason alone, I think the government should ensure some form of course planning for the higher education sector, so that there are not areas without say, music courses or philosophy. Both are degree courses important as part of the pipeline for future teachers of music and religious education. As these are also both subjects that already fail to recruit enough graduates into teaching, reducing the number studying them on degree courses even further would endanger that pipeline even more.

The intervention of the government in place planning, even at a broad level, also makes economic sense to me, as moving students from loans to welfare is also not a good use of public money. How to manage the balance between leaving the future for higher education to the market, and an orderly return to fiscal rectitude might at least be worth a discussion amongst politicians and those that advise them.

An ATOL Scheme for MATs, as DfE finally takes action on MAT with a large deficit

Posted on by
Reply

SchoolsWeek are running a story about the breakup by the DfE of a multi-academy trust that was seriously in deficit last August, when it closed its account year for 2024-25. Arthur Terry: Trust with £8m deficit to be broken up

 I suppose this is the sort of story that is best released just before a school holiday – what at one time was known as a ’Jo Moore’ story. Now there’s a surprise | John Howson

The fact that the Aruther Terry Learning Partnership (ATLP) can go from a deficit of £4.5mn in August 2024 to a deficit of £8.3mn in August 2025, and who knows what by May 2026, (page 83 of accounts filed at Companies House) raises serious questions about whether abolishing the Funding Agency and brining its functions back into the DfE has worked? THE ARTHUR TERRY LEARNING PARTNERSHIP filing history – Find and update company information – GOV.UK

The ATLP had 25 schools and a teaching hub under its management in August 2025. I make that a deficit of not far short of £320,000 per school.

SchoolsWeek informs readers that the issue has been around the decision to purchase iPads for all 11,000 staff and children. At current retail process that would amount to expenditure of somewhere between £3.6mn and £12mn, including VAT which would be recoverable.

Assuming some form of education discount, say 10%, the bill would be in the region of £2.5mn to £9mn depending upon the model selected. Opting to pay over a couple of years, would reduce the annual bill even more. As a result, although this might be a contributory cause, it doesn’t look like the whole cause of the crisis – unless I have underestimated their spend on additional software and other extras.

This is a MAT where they haven’t been paying excessive salaries to the senior staff. A top salary of £160,000, although more than any local Director of Children’s Services might have been receiving in August 2025, sadly isn’t way out of line for MAT CEOs.

The DFE has decided to wind up the MAT, and presumably force other MATs to take on schools in their localities. I assume, with some guarantee over any losses transferred with the school.

This is scandalous in terms of the oversight of public money. In my mind it demonstrates that lack of local political scrutiny means all the oversight rests with the civil service. Indeed, there is no reason for MATs not to rack up deficits if all that happens is the schools are transferred to another MAT, and the DfE funds the bill – presumably from the funds that might otherwise go to schools that manage to keep their finances in balance each year.

I wonder whether an ATOL type scheme might be appropriate, levied on all MATs, and used to pay off deficits that cause any MAT to become unviable? Of course, it will only work if the DfE is willing to take swift action. Any MAT with a debt amount of x per school should be wound up. The ATOL scheme, lets call in the MBOS (MAT Bail Out scheme) should have a board comprised equally of finance directors of MATs and finance directors of public companies, overseen by a financially astute, but neutral chair.   

Even if this sort of scheme isn’t attractive to government, there does need to be better oversight of MATs finances, especially as falling rolls will put pressure on all school finances. There might even be a similar scheme for local authorities, especially as local government re-organisation might mean the risk of lax internal audit regimes for a couple of years across large swathes of rural England.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026

Posted on by
Reply

Hurrah for Section 61 and 62 of this new Act of Parliament. These two sections extend control over in-year admissions by local authorities to include academies. This has been achieved by inserting new clauses in the existing legislation, in order to widen the reach from just non-academy schools, historically controlled by local authorities, to now include academies and, I assume, free schools.

Regular readers will know that I started a campaign for this change way back in 2017, after I discovered how long it was taking to place children taken into care in a new school on some occasions, if that school was an academy. See Support ‘Looked After’ young people’s education | John Howson and Don’t forget Jacob | John Howson along with various other posts over the years on this blog.

The previous Children’s Commissioner also campaigned on this issue, and I raised it in November 2024 in questions to the Minister of State at the DfE when he spoke to the ADCS conference in Liverpool that year.

I hope the relevant sections of the new Act will be swifty enacted, rather than just sitting on the statute book.

There is then the issue of selective schools and children that would have attended them if taken into care before the selection process took place.

I hope that local authorities with selective schools in their area will ensure that such children are able to be placed in such schools. After all, a child should not go from the top set in a comprehensive school to a school that will not stretch their abilities to the full.

Now that education is expected of all up to eighteen, it is also important to discuss whether local authorities should have similar powers over the 16-18 age-group and education? This would include further education colleges and the 14-18 sector and studio schools and UTCs that might be a bit of anomaly under some readings of the new clauses in the 2023 Act? Hopefully, some one will tell me that I am wrong on this point.

Here is Section 62

62Power to direct admission: extension to Academies

(1) In section 96(8) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (schools subject to local authority powers to direct admission of individual pupils), for “a maintained school” substitute “—

(a)a maintained school, or

(b)an Academy school, other than one specially organised to make special educational provision for pupils with special educational needs.”

So, my thanks to all that have made this change come about. It has taken too long, but hopefully it will help to reduce the break in schooling for those taken into care that have to move school because of the distance of their new placement from their existing school.

There is much else in the Act to welcome, but where is the Curriculum Review and the need to teach citizenship now the government ahs reaffirmed its intention to reduce the voting age from 18 to 16?

Will teachers vote to take industrial action?

Posted on by
1

The BBC are running a story that suggests a teacher association: the NEU will ask its members about whether they support industrial action that could, presumably, include striking and closing schools? Teachers in England move towards striking over pay – BBC News

My guess is that their members will vote for action: at least in the secondary schools. Whether the larger number of NEU members in primary schools will do so, might be more uncertain. Here’s a link to an early post of this blog, way back from February 2013 February | 2013 | John Howson about what happened then.

Now, we live in different times: a Labour government; many years of pay freezes and pay rises below those in the private sector, but two relatively generous recent settlements, and the possibility of a three-year deal in even more challenging times.

Now factor in, falling rolls leading to job uncertainty in many primary schools, better recruitment to lower targets for new teachers, the need for increased spending on defence and welfare, and an electorate that will judge the government on the length of NHS waiting lists rather than what happens in schools, and the balance between expressing concerns by voting for industrial action, and actually taking action sometime in the autumn, is as the saying goes, a ‘whole different kettle of fish’.

My bet is, shake the big stick now, but think carefully about strike action in the autumn. Or perhaps persuade the government to tweak the pay offer, when it comes from the pay review body, so that both sides can claim victory.

It is interesting that this story is running 100 years after the only real General Strike in British history. This is an anniversary that, unlike Sir David Attenborough’s century, has been largely ignored by the media. I guess nobody wanted to drag it up during a period of local and state elections across the United(!) Kingdom.

One interesting fact from Thursday, is that Labour lost control of Haringey Council. They did so in the 1968 local government debacle. In that period of two-party politics, to the Conservatives. This time the outcome is more complicated. In 1968, the year of revolutions across Europe, Labour in government didn’t sack the Prime minister. Indeed, Harold Wilson led the Party into the 1970 general elections: a much closer race than the 1968 results might have predicted.

The Haringey result is interesting to me, as it meant that in 1971, I started work as a teacher in Tottenham under a Conservative administration. I don’t recall much changing when, in 1972, Labour regained control of the borough. Now the remainder of that decade was a turbulent time in British politics and not only the teachers, but also non-teaching staff. They took industrial action, leading eventually during the ‘Winter of discontent’ in 1979, to all Haringey’s schools being closed, not by the teachers, but by the caretakers going on strike. The Labour administration did not expect anyone, even church schools, to try and break that strike.  These days, with the internet, and remote schooling commonplace, such an outcome in terms of teaching and learning might be much less likely.

For a discussion of the effects in 1979 see my posts from 2020  March | 2020 | John Howson COVID-19 PM’s Suez? | John Howson and The State cannot just abandon children | John Howson and especially from February 2020 Closing schools, but not stopping education | John Howson

School Transport- who pays for diesel’s price increases?

Posted on by
Reply

Since the start of the conflict in the Middle East, the price of diesel at the pumps has increased from around £1.42 – the average price before the conflict – to £1.90 at the start of May What is happening to UK fuel and petrol prices? – BBC News By comparison, at the height of the concerns over the Ukraine conflict, the price of diesel peaked at just under £2 per litre.

So, could the pump price charged for diesel fuel in 2026 go even higher than the price witnessed in 2022? As I write this, on the 3rd May 2026, it seems quite possible, and even probably that this will be the case: hopefully, I am proved wrong.

The increase in the price of fuel, the rise in the minimum wage, and other cost pressures due to inflation still being above the Bank of England’s target figure of 2%, will be bad news for those local authorities with significant transport bill for conveying pupils to and from schools, either for SEND or because their pupils live in rural areas beyond the two or three mile distance, historically seen as the distance where it is reasonable for parents to pay to ensure children attend their nearest school.  

Although fuel costs are not as high a proportion of total transport costs as are wages, an increase of a third in fuel prices is going to have an impact on transport contracts being negotiated for the new school year starting in September 2026.

A council with a £40 million education transport bill, not unreasonable for a large rural shire county, might see a 5-10% extra charge. This translated to £2-4 million extra across a council’s financial year, and likely even more across a school-year if prices continue to rise further.

 The risk is that some operators might well collapse under the price increase, especially if they are in fixed price contracts with a local authority, leaving a seller’s market, as operators will know that pupils must be transported to school.  Could this outcome drive prices even higher?

How will local authorities cope with these prices increases? Those with reserves, will draw on them until the next round of council tax rate setting in February 2027. However, many local authorities don’t have large reserves, and with local government reorganisation looming for the rural areas, running up a deficit may not be possible.

What remains is either cuts to other services or a government bailout to cover the extra cost of fuel. With social care, and adult social care especially, taking the lion’s share of the budgets of rural counties, there may be few services where cuts are possible, especially since adult social care can involve its own significant fuel costs associated with ‘care in the community’.  

Protecting services such as the youth service and the funding for under-fives could be at risk if local authorities have to bear the brunt of transport related cost increases, especially since the war started just at the wrong time for local government financing, when budgets for 2026-27 were already finalised.

With so many different political parties now in charge, it will be interesting to see how they approach this problem, and who is asked to take the consequences.

UK graduates not yet rushing into teaching

Posted on by
Reply

There has been a lot of talk about how challenging graduates are finding the job market at present. Is this ‘difficult’ job market for graduates showing up in renewed graduate interest in teaching as a career? The DfE has published the latest (April 2026) data about application to teacher preparation courses as a 20th April 2026. Initial teacher training application statistics for courses starting in the 2026 to 2027 academic year – Apply for teacher training – GOV.UK

While there has been a modest increase in applications to be a teacher for most areas of the United Kingdom – the North East, Northen Ireland and Wales excepted – the biggest increase continues to be from the ‘rest of the world’ grouping, up by a massive 42% on April 2025. Only three regions in England have percentage increases in double figures: the East Midlands, London and the North West. The South East, South West and Yorkshire and The Humber regions have increases in applicants of less than five per cent.

AreaApr-26Apr-25Difference% Diff
EM2427206236515%
EE283126302017%
LON6504571179312%
NE10681108-40-4%
NW4106359551112%
SE397538171584%
SW216720661015%
WM336231202427%
YH28082720883%
292482682924198%
  
EEA582528549%
NI447473-26-6%
RoW122517096515542%
SCOT20319673%
WALES384418-34-9%
UNKNOWN106120-14-13%
139738831514237%

Increases at this level do not yet suggest a significant switch to teaching in large numbers. Indeed, the increase in England as a whole is just 2,419 extra applicants, or 8%.

One significant increase is that of male applicants, up from 13,234 to 18,111. However, it is impossible to know how many of these extra male applicants have come from the ‘Rest of the world’ pool?

There are also large differences in the increases from ‘new 2026’ graduates and older graduate. However, the ‘Rest of the world’ effect may be skewing this data

AgeApr-26Apr-25Difference% Diff
21312629941324%
22425639682887%
23368233693139%
24282826132158%
25-29102877824246324%
30-3467634618214532%
35-3951443899124524%
40-443524286066419%
45-492012175625613%
50-54956919374%
55-59446455-9-2%
60-64158145138%
65+3733411%
unknown47-3-75%
4322335460776318%

Total applicants at 43,221 remains well below the record of 67,269 applicants for similar courses recorded by the UCAS GTTR scheme in the 2009/2010 round during the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis. To that number must be added those that applied for school-based courses, such s the GTTP that did not recruit through UCAS, as well as the Open University, that also did not recruit through UCAS.

Higher Education – up from 24,028 to 30,104 has borne the brunt of the extra applications. SCITTs have shown little growth, up from 11,293 to 11,544, perhaps because overseas applicants are less familiar with this toute into teaching. This might also explain the lack of any increase in the ‘partner-led’ courses. Apprenticeships are on the increase, up from 4,783 to 7,894, but ‘salaried route remains static at 5,883 compared with 5,389 last year in April 2025.

Even before the DfE announcement of the ‘needs’ numbers for 2026, ‘offers were down at 20th April at 17,880, compared with 18,297 in April 2025.

I have written a separate post about the state of play with regard to ’offers’ in secondary subjects. In the primary phase, applicant numbers are up from 12,502 to 14,797, but ‘offers’ for primary courses are little changed, up from 6,992 to 7,106. However, as the DfE ‘need’ has reduced ‘need’ from 7,650 to just 5,520 for 2026, there are likely to be few if any more offers, as the ‘need’ figure is already some 1,500 below the ‘offer’ number.

So, there is no great rush towards teaching as a career from United Kingdom graduates. Whether that will change over the next couple of months as final examinations are completed, and the reality of the job market hits home, only time will tell. But, for would-be primary teachers, I expect that the  ‘bus has now left the stop’ and it was already fully laden.

Religious Education – the need for qualified teachers

Posted on by
Reply

In a recent post on this blog about the DfE’s modelling of trainee teacher needs, I wrote that

‘However, has this re-assessment of need gone too far? Based on … my own current research into vacancies for teachers of music, I think the DfE has been realistic in its approach. ‘

While, I stand by that judgement, I have also been reminded by Deborah Weston, championing on behalf of those concerned with the teaching of religious education in schools that the cutback in trainee numbers probably allows little room for the replacement of the ‘under’ or even ‘un-qualified’ teachers currently teaching religious education in our schools.

Prompted by Deborah, I looked at the trends from the Teacher Workforce surveys concerning the use of those with ‘no qualification in the subject’ teaching religious education over the period between the end of the Blair/Brown Labour government and the end of the Conservative period of government. Of course, recent years have been impacted by the covid pandemic, and its consequences, but there is a clear trend that is observable.

The chart shows the four key types of secondary schools, of which the 11-18 school line is probably the most significant.

At the end of the Labour government, partly I expect as a result of the economic crisis of 2008, the percentage of teachers of religious education with ‘no qualification in the subject’ was reducing. However, the percentage levelled out as school rolls began to increase again, and teacher supply entered into an extended period of years when teacher preparation programmes missed their targets.

There was a brief respite as a result of covid, but in the most recent years, as trainee numbers have fallen, so the percentage of teachers with ‘no qualification in the subject’ has reached levels not seen since well before 2010.

As a result, the question now is, was the DfE right to cut trainee targets for religious education from 780 last year to 450 this year? On the basis that including unfilled places from previous recruitment rounds was a mistake, as I have always maintained, then the answer is clearly, yes, the DfE have taken the correct decision.

However, in subjects such as religious education, where most pupils only study the subject for a limited period of time each week, managing recruitment is easier for schools, if qualified staff are available.

I would add that in my opinion, religious education when taught by well-prepared and knowledgeable teachers can be a really valuable subject, especially at this time in the history of our multi-cultural society, where both many different faiths are practiced, and a growing minority profess to having no faith in religion at all.

If the government cannot see their way to increase the stated need for trainee religious education teachers, providers can always over-recruit, at least to higher education courses, where government funding isn’t an issue.

In addition to pre-entry training, the DfE might also like to consider another approach to the issue of shortage of religious education teachers: upskilling those presently teaching the subject, but without an appropriate qualification.  If it is important that a subject be offered on the curriculum, it beholds government to ensure it is taught properly.  

Spending cash on upskilling will no doubt help retention, and thus save on recruitment and training costs. However, apart from in mathematics and the sciences, it hasn’t really featured as a policy objective for many years: surely that’s a mistake.

I hope that the religious affairs lobby is able to persuade the government that significantly reducing the percentage of inappropriately qualified teachers of religious education should be a key policy objective.

ITT Offers – public money being wasted?

Posted on by
1

The DfE has today published the April data on postgraduate ITT courses, as at 20th April 2026. Initial teacher training application statistics for courses starting in the 2026 to 2027 academic year – Apply for teacher training – GOV.UK

This is the first month where offers can be compared with the DfE’s required need for each subject for September 2026 courses. I have previously posted about the draconian changes to the demand in many subjects as required by the DfE that have resulted from a different approach to unfilled vacancies. ITT Numbers for 2026 – brutal realism from DfE or big risk? | John Howson

Here is my assessment of possible outcomes for September, when courses commence, based upon current offers and past trends. It will be interesting to see how my view compares with that of Jack Worth at NfER.

SubjectTarget 2026/27offer April 2026DfE identified needFILL?
Chemistry690829-139YES
Biology675398277YES
Mathematics20001752248YES
Design & Technology620382238POSSIBLY
Art & Design605449156YES
Geography685353332POSSIBLY
Classics753639NO
English19801176804PROBABLY
Drama370207163PROBABLY
Business Studies1200224976NO
Music26016199POSSIBLY
Religious Education450339111POSSIBLY
Others20353721663NO
History520736-216YES
Modern Languages1085946139YES
Physics8101140-330YES
Physical Education6551175-520YES
Computing56553926YES

In some subjects, such as history, physics!, physical education and chemistry, providers have already made more offers than required ‘need’.  This demonstrates the danger of leaving it so late in the recruitment cycle to announce estimated demand.

In the past, these numbers used to appear before Christmas. With a rolling offer system in place, rather than a defined closing date, leaving the announcement of ‘need’ until April is likely to cost someone money. Will the DfE pay bursaries to all students offered a place, even if recruitment is above the stated ‘need’? If so, that could be seen as a waste of money.

However, of more concern are the subjects where, even with the new numbers for ‘need’, there are unlikely to be enough applicants to fill all the places. Based on previous trends, classics, business studies and the ’others’ grouping will not meet their ‘need’ number. I think it is time that the ‘other’ category, with 2,035 places is disaggregated into different subjects, after all, it is now by far the largest group in the subject’s table.

I have some concern about where design and technology, geography, music and religious education will produce enough offers to meet the revised ‘need’. However, I can now see why the bursary was removed from music. I still think that was a serious error of judgement, as this is a subject where only those with appropriate subject knowledge are accepted onto courses. Music has one of the highest applications to offer ratios of any subject. Current offers are the second lowest April ‘offer’ number since 2018.

What happens in the wider economy, and graduate job market, will determine the outcome of this recruitment round. I suspect there will be a summer surge in applications, as new graduates discover how tough the job market has become. This should mean a good year for teaching course. However, many applicants may now have found they have left it too late to secure a place for this autumn. This year will really be a case of ‘the early bird that catches the worm’.

I will now delve deeper into the data for another post about the nature of applicants and applications as revealed in this month’s data.

DfE Vacancy site – some more thoughts

Posted on by
Reply

The DfE vacancy site has now been in operation since 2018. During that time, it has altered little in appearance. Right from the start of the site, I was critical of its features. I felt then that TeachVac and other sites could have done a better job for much less money. I posted my frustration about the site in both January and March of this year.

After another infuriating day working on the headteacher vacancies listed on the DfE’s vacancy site yesterday, I though I would take a further look at what was on offer in terms of headteacher vacancies.

First off, the DfE site told me there were, in total, 122 vacancies, if I used their pre-defined key word of ‘headteacher’. The vacancies are presented in a list order covering 13 pages. However, there are not 122 vacancies for a headteacher.  10 of the posted vacancies are either for Executive Headships of more than one school (2) or posts below a headship (8 vacancies). Indeed, one vacancy isn’t even a teaching post. So, the real total of headteacher vacancies is 112?

No, sorry, that is not correct either. This is because 10 of the vacancies, including one non-teaching vacancy, appear twice on the site. As a result, the actual number of schools advertising for a new headteacher on the DfE vacancy site at 0900 on the 25th April 2026 was actually 102. That’s 20% below that stated figure.

Now, I have nothing against multiple listings. After all, a person might miss the vacancy the first time it appeared: but why only a few random vacancies? I believe such double listings should either be removed from the site – it just requires a simple piece of coding – or the rules about the same vacancy being listed more than once at the same time should be made clear.

Where I do quibble with the DfE, is with the inclusion of posts not for a headteacher vacancy in the listings under the ‘headteacher’ category, and, as a result, their inclusion in the overall total. This is just mis-leading, and schools should be prevented from uploading such vacancies under the ‘headteacher’ listing. Again, this should not be a difficult coding exercise.

The other question is: does the vacancy site meet the needs of schools and candidates? Well, some schools still advertise their vacancy for a headteacher elsewhere. Local authority job boards for non-academy schools; the ‘tes’ as well, or in a small number of cases instead of the DfE site. Some vacancies also appear on regional websites, such as in the North East or South West.

The DfE vacancy site doesn’t accept vacancies from non-state funded schools. Candidates considering both state and private schools have to look at more than one vacancy site. Is this a good idea? I don’t think it matters at the level of headteacher posts, except perhaps for special needs schools, where the private sector is playing an increasingly important role. However, for entry level jobs, some form of aggregation might be useful, especially as candidates begin to outnumber vacancies for the first time in many years.

Does the DfE have a board or committee that reviews its vacancy site? If not, perhaps the teacher association might ask for a review. After all, they would serve their members better by operating such a site themselves. Not only would they have better data on vacancy trends to argue their case with the STRB, but they could also earn some extra income. When I suggested this to the associations in 2013, when I created TeachVac, sadly they weren’t interested.

The Teacher Supply Model

Posted on by
Reply

On Thursday, the DfE published its annual note about the working of the Teacher Supply Model Teacher demand and postgraduate trainee need: 2026 to 2027 – GOV.UK

The Model can be easily described in the DfE’s own diagram

It is interesting to note that the Teacher Supply Model

assumes that as pupil numbers grow, teacher demand will grow too, and vice versa. Additionally, the model assumes that PTRs will grow in line with the historical relationship between pupil numbers and PTRs. Similarly, the model assumes that PTRs will fall if pupil numbers fall. In other words, as pupil numbers grow, the TWM assumes that schools will increase the size of the teacher workforce and allow class sizes to grow a little. 

As a result, the Model finds it challenging to manage changes, such as in the curriculum. One of the best examples was the introduction of citizenship during the Blair/Brown Labour government. Schools didn’t sack teachers to make space for teachers trained in the subject, and with no historical data to underpin the need, estimates had to be made.

The assumptions about pupil teacher ratios are, of course, unable to factor in economic headwinds that might change assumptions about future funding of schools. There was a god example early in this century when, in a budget, the Chancellor announced extra cash to be sent directly to schools. Not surprisingly, the schools went after extra teachers and equilibrium in the labour market was only restored by a hike in teachers’ pay that dampened down demand that had not been anticipated in the Modelling.

I have discussed these points with the overseas governments that I have advised on teacher supply modelling over the years. I also favour including a check on what is currently happening in the labour market by surveys of vacancies. Advances in technology, such as pioneered by TeachVac, way back in 2013, allow current trends to be matched with the data input into the Teacher Supply Model that may be two to three years between data collection and the output of trainees based upon the data joining the labour market.

One increasingly interesting issue that the Teacher Supply Model may need to consider is the growing international labour market for teachers. The Model currently imperfectly accounts for loss from the trainee and existing teacher pools to the private sector in England. In the future, it might need to consider how many trainees opt to work abroad. This will be especially important if more overseas students are offered places on teacher preparation courses. Will they be offered visas to teacher in England, or will they leave the country after completion of their courses? I will try to consider this issue in a later post.

Finally, I am delighted that the statisticians have abandoned what they have called ‘the removal of the need for an adjustment relating to forecasted under-supply’.  Adding back in the number of unfilled places from a previous ITT round to the next year’s total was never a good idea, as I have made clear in a number of my posts on this blog. The decline in Physics ITT places from a high of 2,250 in 2024/25 to just 810 for 2026/27 is a good case in point.

However, has this re-assessment of need gone too far? Based on Timo Hanney’s work on vacancies and my own current research into vacancies for teachers of music, I think the DfE has been realistic in its approach. After all, if they have under-estimated demand, the government can always recruit more teachers from overseas by enticing those trained here to return to England.