Tag Archives: DfE

Will university course cuts mean fewer teachers?

Posted on by
Reply

Estimates are doing the rounds on social media about the number of places on courses in universities already lost through cuts and course closures. Do the cuts matter? Of course, it depends upon what you want from the higher education sector?

Personally, being entirely selfish, I want enough graduates to be able to staff our schools in the future. I am hopeful that HEPI, or even the DfE are monitoring both the cuts to courses that have already taken place and any that are proposed for possible implications around recruitment into teacher training and then on into teaching.

I have seen at least one post suggesting that the cuts to courses already introduced are disproportionally in higher education institutions with more teaching than research. Twenty years ago, I conducted a survey for the then TTA about attitudes towards teaching as a career amongst final year students. A large number of students expressing an interest in teaching came from higher education institutions with a higher profile for teaching than research. If that is still the case, then where cuts take place will matter.

Many of the higher education providers where teaching is really important are located in urban areas, and have strong roots in their local communities. This is also important if, as used to be the case, a large number of new graduates went on to train as teachers at the same university, or in the same area, as they studied for their first degree. I wonder whether anyone is monitoring this trend?

Of course, there are schemes, of which Teach First is one example where they have recruited students into teaching from research intensive institutions without a local link to teacher training, such as LSE, Imperial College and Royal Holloway College in the London area.

However, it would be interesting to hear from university careers services about the views of current students about where they are willing to train as a teacher: is locality important or are other factors affecting decision-making, such as the cost of living for students in some areas.

I always thought it was a shame that the Open University quit teacher training. Not only did the OU bring access to a large number of mature students, but by starting it ITT course in January, it both offered a different staring point for those  that decided they wanted to teach after courses starting in September had closed, but also by ending their courses when they did, the OU also provided new entrants to fill those vacancies that occur in January or even at the start of the summer term.

Taking a longer-term view, when the current reduction in the school population works its way into higher education, where and what courses those students’ study will be even more important for the labour market for teachers.

Fortunately, we now have the apprenticeship routes into teaching. Should we be diverting future teachers from experiencing the university rite of passage and replacing it with the world of work? I am sure that there is an interesting debate to be had on that topic.

‘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?

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.

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.

Sort out physics teacher preparation courses

Posted on by
Reply

The next couple of years likely to see the best recruitment levels to physics ITT courses for more than a decade. As a result, there might be a risk that everyone concerned with teacher preparation breathes a huge sigh of relief, and put the problem of the shortage of teachers of physics in the ‘job done’ bin. In my view that would be a big mistake.

Now is the time for someone, perhaps the Institute of Physics, NfER, Nuffield or Gatsby to consider a research project that looks at the pipeline of physics teachers from school to school, and notably from university to teaching. Do different courses produce different numbers of teachers of physics that stay in the profession, and become the leaders of tomorrow or just provide short-term additions to the teaching stock. How important is a middle leadership cadre?

 Mapping these outcomes both geographically and as between public and private schools, and within the public sector as between 11-16; 11-18 and post-16 institutions might create an understanding that could then lead to a debate about how every child could access high quality physics teaching on a regular basis up to Level 3.

With the improvement in mathematics in schools over recent years, there should be the possibility of increasing interest in physics, especially amongst girls. The percentage of girls taking physics is still lamentably low. This is despite 30 years of programmes such as WISE. How far has the lack of management of the scare resource that is teachers of physics held back the encouragement of more girls to study the subject?

Teaching has always looked to be a profession where there is basic pay equality. That’s fine when there aren’t shortages, but there have always been incentives and rewards from golden hellos to additional payments for working in challenging schools. What incentives work to keep teachers of physics in the profession. Is it non-pay matters, such as not having to teach ‘all sciences’ or some mathematics that is as important as pay?

If gender is an issue, what about ethnicity: of both teachers and those that study physics at school? Then there is the issue of what percentage of pupils on free school meals have access to high quality physics teaching? Is it different from those small numbers on free school melas in schools in affluent areas, compared with schools where a large percentage of pupils are on free school meals. In the latter schools, attracting a physics teacher means access for some pupils. In the former, even if there is a physics teacher do the pupils on free school meals have access to physics?

And what about pupils with SEND? What is their access to physics teaching like?

Physics could be a template for other subjects to ask the questions about, ‘what can we do to ensure we have the best system for preparing teachers, recruiting them into schools, and ensuring that they stay in the profession.’ The alternative is that we could carry on as before, and rely upon market forces to provide the Nobel Prize winner of the future.