What’s in a name? I suspect that St Mary’s, albeit in a myriad of different forms, probably remains the most popular name for a school; certainly, for primary schools. For some reason, it seems like it is less common to use the name of a saint in the name of a church secondary school. The exception to this rule seems to be where the saint was a Martyr, and especially and English martyr.
However, with the growth of academies, is a new trend developing of including the name of the operator of the Multi Academy Trust to which the school belongs in the schools’ name? I was alerted to this possibility when entering headteacher vacancies. Recruiting headteachers in 2025 – a mixed picture | John Howson
In the course of entering vacancies, I came across a school called: ‘Saracens Broadfields’. Now, I have always associated The Saracens with a rugby union club, originating, I believe, in Southgate. This school provides no indication of its location in its name, but it is located elsewhere in outer London.
Some MATs, such as Dixons, provide both the brand name, Dixons, plus the location in the name of the school in the names of many of their schools.
Of course, it is important to know the group responsible for a school, and in the days before websites, when parents had to rely upon the noticeboard by the school gate, that noticeboard used to display the local authority, diocese or other operator of the school alongside the school’s name. In practice, most schools still have noticeboards, and these boards still contain the same information. However, it is often more of a challenge to find who is responsible for a school from its website.
Happily, the DfE has a solution, as the details of a school on the DfE information portal contain the name of any academy trust, diocese, local authority or other operator. This makes it possible to see all the schools under the control of the operator; very helpful where the schools are spread across several different local authority areas, as is the case with many dioceses, and a growing number of academy trusts.
Apart from Queen Elizabeth, and various Henry’s, royalty does feature highly in school names. These are usually references to Tudor monarchs that help establish the schools from with the current school can trace its lineage. A few politicians, often former education ministers, such as Ellen Wilkinson and Rab Butler have been honoured to have schools named after them. Some other famous people have had local schools named after them, such as Sir Malcolm Sarget in Stamford and Sir Frank Whittle in Coventry. Florence Nightingale has a primary school named after her, and Elizabeth Garrett Anderson has a secondary school bearing her name, although from its web site it would be a challenge to discover why the school had that name, and that seems a shame.
So will schools be unceasingly likely to display their brand in their names. If so, what will happen when a school is traded between MATS for some reason or other. Clearly, the name will have to change.
Let me finish this post, the first of 2026, by wishing readers all the best for the New Year. May 2026 be a good year for you.
A report by Prof. John Howson, Oxford Teacher Services Ltd
Executive Summary
· More than 400 state schools in England advertised a headteacher vacancy between August and Christmas 2025.
· 17% of special school headteacher adverts were not filled at first advert and had been re-advertised by Christmas 2025.
· 16% of Roman Catholic schools have had to re-advertise their head teacher vacancy.
· 26% of schools that advertised a head teacher vacancy in September had re-advertised the post by Christmas 2025.
· 45 of the 91 secondary schools advertising for a new headteacher quoted a starting salary of more than £100,000 – not all schools quoted a starting salary.
· Some schools offered non-pay benefits as well as the cash salary.
· The lowest starting salary quoted for a headteacher vacancy was £53,000.
Introduction
Between 1983 and 2022, I produced an annual report into the turnover of headteachers in state schools in England. The data collection was paused in July 2022, just before I took on the role of Cabinet Member for Children’s Service in Oxfordshire. After ceasing to be a councillor in May 2025, and hence relinquishing my Cabinet role, I once again started reviewing advertisements for headteachers posted by state schools in England.
Most headteacher vacancies appear on the DfE’s quirky teacher vacancy platform. However, a small number also appear in the ‘tes’ on-line vacancy portal. When I started collecting headteacher vacancies in the 1980s, the ‘tes’ paper edition was the main vehicle for posting headteacher vacancies.
At that time, it was mandatory for these vacancies to be posted nationally. Although not a requirement today, I suspect that most vacancies for headteachers are still posted nationally on vacancy sites such as the DfE site. Among the vacancies posted there can be wide variations in the length of time between a vacancy appearing on the DfE vacancy website and the closing date for applications.
Presumably, if there is a strong internal candidate, either within the school or the Multi Academy Trust to which the school belongs, there is no incentive to have the standard three weeks to a month period between the vacancy and the closing date.
Looking at the data collected this autumn, it has been possible to identify one school in special measures that advertised a vacancy collected on a Monday, but with a closing date for the Friday of the same week – was there a strong internal candidate? Perhaps an acting interim headteacher, so the advertisement was a mere formality?
My methodology for the survey has been to search both the DfE and ‘tes’ vacancy sites at least every week, and during busy periods more than once a week. This is a more accurate methodology than just counting vacancies using Artificial Intelligence, since the DfE’s website has a habit of regularly posting some vacancies more than once at the same point in time. This quirk has been a part of the DfE’s site since its inception, and can make simple vacancy counting inaccurate.
While some schools have a short space of time between the advert appearing and the closing date, by way of contrast, some other schools advertise well in advance of their closing date. Five schools that advertised in December 2025 had a closing date in February 2026.
Too long a period between advertising a vacancy and the closing date for applications can be a risk for a school. Previous surveys found that candidates often applied for several vacancies, especially for primary headships advertised during busy periods for vacancies. Keeping a vacancy open too long, and then waiting before interviewing can risk losing good candidates to another school where the process is shorter in time.
Faith schools often fall into the latter category of schools with long periods between the vacancy being advertised and the closing date, especially if they are not part of an academy trust.
One key change since the days of paper advertising of vacancies for headships has been the importance of December as a period for advertising such vacancies. In the days of print advertising, few vacancies were advertised in December, and previous reports warned against the risk of such an advertisement, since few likely candidates were reading the job columns in December, and many advertised vacancies were often re-advertised in January.
In the modern ‘on-line’ era, where AI can help do the job search for a candidate, advertising in December, as soon as a governing body or Trust has been informed of a resignation is no longer a handicap. Indeed, in December 2025, there were 133 headteacher vaccines recorded, compared with just 56 in September. 2025
Not surprisingly, primary schools of all descriptions dominated the total vacancies advertised. The primary school sector accounted for 299 or the 436 vacancies recorded between August and Christmas 2025.
By contrast, there were 91 vacancies for secondary schools, including two for all-through schools with a primary section. Such all-through schools were fashionable a decade ago, when schools were converting to become academies. However, I have never been a fan of such schools, preferring the 1944 Education Act requirement of a split between the primary and secondary phases, at whatever age it occurs.
Indeed, there are still some ‘Middle’ schools in existence with a transfer age of either 12 or 13, rather than at age 11, where the vast majority of pupils still transfer from one sector to the other.
Unlike in previous studies of headteacher vacancies since the1980s, this analysis collected state nursery school vacancies and vacancies for special schools as well as the vacancies for primary and secondary school headships. To date, there have been two vacancies for headteachers of state nursery schools, and 44 for headteachers of state special schools. There has also been one vacancy for a Sixth Form College (16-19) run under Schools’ Regulations and managed by a university.
Vacancies recorded by sector
Sector
Readvertised
Vacancy
Percentage Re-advertised
Primary
19
298
6%
Secondary
3
88
3%
Special
9
44
20%
Independent/other
0
1
0%
Nursery
0
2
0%
All Through
0
2
0%
Sixth Form College
0
1
0%
31
436
7%
Vacancies by control of the school
The majority of schools that advertised for a headteacher were not faith schools of any description. These non-faith schools consisted of both ‘maintained’ schools, where the local upper tier authority was the de jure employer of the headteacher, even though decisions on hiring and firing were taken by individual schools, and not the local authority. As a result of this anomaly between the de jure and de facto employment position, however small the school is, it is still subject to the apprenticeship Levy, as a result of the local authority’s position as employer.
Schools that were not ‘maintained’ were academies, either as an increasingly rare ‘standalone’ academy or as part of a Multi Academy Trust overseen by a Chief Executive. In some smaller Trusts, the Chief Executive may also be the headteacher of a school within the Trust. In that case the vacancy was recorded. Where the Chief Executive was not a head of a named school the vacancy was not included in this survey.
The two key Christian denominations of the Church of England, and the Roman Catholic Church, accounted for 126 vacancies between them in this survey (Church of England, 79, and the Roman Catholic Church, 47 vacancies). There were also two joint Church of England and Methodist Church primary schools and one Methodist primary school that advertised for a headteacher during the August to Christmas 2025 period.
In addition, one school of another Christian denomination advertised for a headteacher during the survey period. No schools of a non-Christian religions were recorded as advertising for a headteacher during the period under review.
Of course, such schools could have advertised their headteacher vacancy in locations specific to their religion, and those vacancies would not then be picked up by this survey if the school did not also advertise on the DfE vacancy site.
Vacancies by control of the school – faith groups
Control of School
Readvertised
Vacancy
Percentage Re-advertised
Church of England
3
79
4%
CE/M
0
2
0%
Methodist Church
0
1
0%
Roman Catholic
8
47
17%
Other Denominations
1
1
100%
No Faith
19
306
6%
Total
31
436
7%
Although the survey does not currently record the Trust to which academies belong, it is possible to discern some of the policies adopted by Trusts around advertising. Some Trusts advertise the vacancy with the address of their headquarters, rather than the address of the school. This is obviously necessary for new schools that are not yet open, but can be confusing for vacancies relating to established schools located away from the Trust’s headquarters.
As noted, some Trusts also advertise for ‘Executive headteachers. These have only been included when it is clear that they are also the headteacher of a specific school within the Trust, and not just responsible for a group of schools.
In 2026, the survey’s methodology will consider trying to capture more information about the Trust a school belongs to at the time the vacancy is recorded.
Re-advertisements
As has been shown in the previous tables in this report, some schools do not manage to make an appointment after advertising a headteacher vacancy.
This survey records a re-advertisement as a repeat vacancy for the same headteacher post with a new closing date at least two weeks after the first recorded closing date. This methodology had been in use since the inception of my headteacher vacancy surveying in the 1980s.
At that time, in the 1980s, it allowed for errors in the original print advertisement to be corrected or the same original vacancy to be advertised for several weeks without counting as a re-advertisement.
With the advent of on-line vacancy advertising, the ‘closing’ date for applications is clear, and it is obvious if it has been altered. These days ‘closing dates’ for vacancies on the DfE vacancy site also specify the latest time that applications can be received.
As a result of some vacancies appearing on the DfE vacancy site with a very short period between the vacancy being captured and the closing date, it has been deemed prudent to retain the clear two-week period before a vacancy can be described as a re-advertisement.
Even though the data on headteachers has only been collected over a five-month period, some clear trends around re-advertising stand out. Two types of schools dominate the schools that decided to re-advertise, presumably because of an inadequate number of applicants suitable for appointment to their headship.
Of the 31 re-advertisements, (including three schools that re-advertised twice during the period after the original vacancy was recorded, nine were special schools, and 19 were primary schools: just three were secondary schools.
The other group with seemingly significant challenges recruiting a new headteacher were the eight were Roman Catholic schools. These schools represent 17% of all Roman Catholic schools that advertised during the period, (eight schools out of 47). One Roman Catholic school re-advertised twice during the period under review.
It is possible that these percentages for re-advertisements are an under-estimate because of the fact that data collection only started in August 2025. Thus, some re-advertisement may have been recorded as first advertisement because their original vacancy was advertised before August 2025. In the 2026 survey, data for a complete year will overcome this issue. In the 2026 survey, any gap of more than twelve months between an advertisement will create a new vacancy, not a further re-advertisement. However, that is for the future, and not this report.
School types with significant re-advertisements for headteacher vacancies
Type of School
Re-advertised vacancies
Original recorded vacancies for the type
Percentage Re-advertised
Special Schools
9
44
20%
Roman Catholic Schools
8
47
17%
Primary Schools
19
297
6%
At present, it is not possible to determine whether the number of pupils on rolls also affects the likelihood of a school readvertising a post. However, further research will investigate this point. One proxy for the number of pupils on roll is the starting salary offered for a headteacher vacancy.
The significant percentage of Roman Catholic schools re-advertising their headteacher vacancy is not a surprise. Previous surveys, from the 1980s onwards, have often shown such schools with a greater propensity to re-advertise a headteacher vacancy than other non-faith or Church of England schools, especially in the primary school sector.
As this is the first time that special school headteacher vacancies have been collected on a systematic basis by this survey, it would be unfair to do more than just record the high percentage of vacancies re-advertised for the headships of such schools (20% of schools have re-advertised). With SEND such a key policy topic, this level of re-advertisement is, however, a matter for concern.
Regional variations
The nine previous government office regions have been used in the past in this survey as a means of determining any regional trends. Even though such regions no longer exist they do still offer a useful basis for comparison, especially during the current chaos of local government reorganisation outside of the conurbations of England. It seems illogical that some local authorities responsible for schools in historic Berkshire County may have been re-organised three times since 1970: in 1974, in the 1990s, and currently awaiting the results of the present round of re-organisation. However, since the 1963 reorganisation in London, the outer London borough responsible for schooling have remained on largely unchanged boundaries, even though some have been reclassified as inner London boroughs at some point in time by the DfE.
Regional vacancy rate for headteachers
Region
Number of schools with re-advertisements
Number of vacancies
Percentage of re-advertisements
East of England
8
62
13%
East Midlands
1
40
3%
London
3
44
7%
North East
2
10
20%
North West
6
73
8%
South East
2
42
5%
South West
1
48
2%
West Midlands
4
58
7%
Yorkshire & The Humber
3
63
5%
TOTAL
30
436
7%
Little should be made of this data, as it only covers a five-month period. The high percentage for the North East is as a result of two special schools in the region needing to re-advertise their vacancy for a headteacher. Apart from that anomaly, there is no evidence of re-advertising by schools in the north East.
There is no evidence of high price housing areas such as London and the South East affecting the need to re-advertise from this limited dataset. However, the East of England that includes local authorities to the north and east of London does have an above average rate of re-advertisements. This will be an area to watch in 2026 to see if this trend continues.
Starting salary of vacancies advertised
One way that schools can prevent the need to re-advertise in high price areas is to offer competitive salaries. Historically, a school’s salary for the headteacher was decided by the number and age range of pupils, with a supplement for special schools because of their nature.
Around a quarter of a century ago, with schools being handed freedom over their budgets, this rule broke down. For a period of time, schools advertised headteacher vacancies with phrases such as ‘a competitive salary’, but no cash amount or a range of spine points in their advertisement. Some schools still eschew advertising a cash salary or a range of points on the Leadership Scale in their advertisement, but may add incentives by way of non-pay inducements in their details of their headteacher vacancy.
In this survey, 12 secondary schools, four primary schools and three special schools of the 436 schools surveyed contained either no cash value or no indication of points on the Leadership Scale for a starting salary. In their advertisement
Some 256 schools included a cash value, either as a range or a fixed point as the starting salary. Of course, a person appointed might start above the bottom of the advertised range, but without the knowledge of actual starting salaries, those bottom points of any range indicated in the advertisement has been used as a sensible point to take for survey purposes.
Starting Salaries
Type of School
Highest cash starting point
Age range and number of pupils on roll for this school
Highest Leadership Starting point
Age range and number of pupils on roll for this school
Primary
£93,424
836
L28
871
Secondary
£120,000
1418
L37
1817
Special
£115,380
137
L25
166
Not the same school for cash and Leadership starting point
There were 44 secondary schools, and five special schools with a starting salary of more than six figures (over £100,000). Of course, some of these starting salaries are increased because the school is in the London weighting or fringe areas for salary purposes.
Interestingly, the school with the highest salary on offer recorded in this survey was in the national salary part of England. The highest recorded starting salary for a primary school headteacher in an advertisement was £93,424 in cash terms, or Leadership point 28 in scale point terms. The lowest salary on offer for a headteacher vacancy in the primary sector was £53,000 in cash terms or Point 1 on the Leadership Scale.
Non-cash benefits
Perhaps the most inclusive set of non-cash benefits offered in an advertisement for a headteacher can be found in a headteacher vacancy advertised by the Co-op Academy chain of schools. Their advertisement offered the following,’ Our employee benefits package includes:’
You’ll get being a Co-op member, you’ll get a Co-op colleague discount card. This gives you a 10% discount in our Co-op Food stores.
Co-operative flexible benefits (discounted line rental and broadband package, family care advice and cycle to work scheme)
Discounted gym membership and leisure activities which includes discounts on Merlin Entertainments (Sea Life, Legoland etc), Virgin Experience Days, SuperBreak and many more!
Co-operative Credit Union: save directly from your salary and receive a competitive dividend. Borrowers can benefit from very competitive interest rates & terms (in comparison with other high street lenders)
Co-op Funeralcare benefit
Season ticket and rental deposit loans
Hopefully, at least one of those benefits will be of no interest to candidates.
Another school offered the following non-cash benefits
access to a private health insurance scheme
a relocation package (subject to eligibility)
a daily lunch allowance for use in the school restaurant
access to our exclusive Benefits Hub.
a cycle to work scheme
a confidential employee assistance service
use of on-site fitness suite
an eye care voucher scheme
flu vaccination vouchers (subject to eligibility)
While a special school offered a mixture of expected benefits, plus a few others:
Competitive salary
Fully funded CPD, mentoring & coaching
A trust-wide commitment to wellbeing, including paid wellbeing days, and free on-site parking
Flexible working options
Access to an employee assistance programme
Teachers’ Pension Scheme
Employee referral scheme (earn up to £500 for successful referrals)
Highly resourced classrooms, small class sizes and access to multidisciplinary teams
A strong safeguarding and therapeutic culture
A London primary school offered the following as benefits
A commitment to supporting a healthy work/life balance
A happy, supportive and friendly environment where we work effectively as a team
Children who are eager to learn, committed staff, governors, parents and carers
Inspiring curriculum enrichment opportunities because of our exciting location close to central London and Spitalfields City Farm
Surprisingly, there were not as many references to tax free relocation allowances in the advertisements as I might have expected.
Conclusion
This survey of headteacher vacancies recorded between August 2025 and Christmas 2025 follows in the tradition of such surveys first started by the author over 40 years ago, in the mid-1980s, and continued until July 2022.
Data has been recorded for more than 400 headteacher vacancies advertised between August 2025 and Christmas 2025. The vacancies were advertised on either the DfE vacancy site or in some cases the ‘tes’ website.
While most schools appear to be successful in recruiting a new headteacher, those that advertised their vacancy in September may have had less success than those schools advertising during the rest of the autumn. However, final re-advertisement rates for vacancies across the autumn won’t be clear until early in 2026, so this point cannot yet be confirmed.
Nevertheless, as in past surveys, it is clear that some schools are finding recruiting a new headteacher more of a challenge than other schools. Two types of school: special schools and schools operated by the Roman Catholic church, both had above average levels of re-advertisements in this survey. I
In the case of two special schools, these schools have been recorded as having placed two re-advertisements for their vacancy, in addition to their first advertisement. Hopefully, these schools will be successful with their third advertisement.
The problems recruiting staff for special schools is often overlooked when the SEND crisis is discussed, and deserves more attention from policymakers.
A significant number of secondary schools now offer starting salaries for their headteacher vacancy of more than £100,000. Starting salaries for some large primary schools are less than £10,000 away from a six-figure starting salary.
Schools now regularly offer a range of non-cash benefits in their advertisements, but one that might have best left out of their advertisement by the Co-op multi academy trust is that of ‘a Co-op Funeral care benefit’. Hopefully, it is not one the incoming headteacher would be expected to need.
December used to be a quiet month for headteacher recruitment when advertisements appear in the press. Nowadays, with on-line advertising, it has become a much busier month for new vacancies to be advertised.
Presumably, schools hope candidates interested in a headship will surf the net between Christmas and the New Year for a new job. However, some schools still have hedged their bets with closing dates not until February 2026. Such late closing dates risk those schools’ losing candidates to schools that are fleeter of foot in their recruitment process.
On the other hand, some schools advertise for no more than a week between vacancy posted and the closing date. Does this suggest an internal candidate being favoured?
In a normal year, about 2,000 headteacher vacancies and re-advertisements might be recorded, so it will be interesting to see how 2026 pans out and the total number of vacancies advertised for the 2025-26 school year.
I look forward to writing the report on 2026 next December
How have my blog posts fared since I restarted this blog in May of 2025? Some new posts were well received, some old favourites from previous years continued to attract readers, and some of this year’s posts languished unread, according to WordPress’s dashboard.
So, as of today, 29th December 2025, what have been the most read posts for 2025 and when were they written?
How much holiday do teachers have?
645
150-year-old Committee system to be abolished
75
Too many teachers?
73
Headteacher vacancies: even in August
68
Windfall profits and SEND
58
‘Stuck’ schools – who teaches in these schools?
55
Less than 400 teachers of physics entered service in 2023/24
54
DfE wasting money on ITT
51
Labour’s determination to recruit new teachers doesn’t include music
53
The governance of our schools – does pay matter?
51
most viewed posts in 2025
By far and away the most read post was the one originally posted on the 20th May 2022 about how much holiday teachers in England have and how their relative position compared to other graduate occupations has been eroded since I started teaching in 1971. I expect changes over the next few years, not least because AI has the potential to seriously disrupt the way schooling is organised.
At present termtime recorded working hours are no longer compensated for by the employer-driven flexitime of ‘school holidays’: an oxymoron of a term for most teachers if ever there was one.
All the other posts in the 2025 top 10 viewed posts were written this year. They can be read either by using the search facility or by clicking on the different months since May 2025.
As might be expected, workforce issues dominate the most frequently viewed posts of 2025., although second place was achieved by a comment about the abolition of what was once a cornerstone of local democracy – the committee system – before Tony Blair’s Labour government encouraged local authorities to move to cabinet government and oversight of schooling through a scrutiny function, thus leaving most councillors out in the cold over local education, even before the advent of academies.
On the down side, many posts have been viewed by fewer than ten people since they were written. This is partly a function of the decline in viewing of blogs, as communication has switched to more modern methods, such as podcasts. Perhaps, I might start a podcast or even a YouTube video recording in 2026; comment welcome on either possibility.
Readership from around the world has once again started to pick up, but has a long way to go to the halcyon days of 2015, and the 22,000 views that year. In 2025, allowing for the fact that the blog only restarted in May, perhaps 6,500 views will be a credible outcome.
So, how many posts have there been in 2025? Including this one, there have been 122 posts, and some 69,000 words.
For those that want to read my 2013 posts, these have now been published on Amazon as an e-book or a paperback.
Should local elected politicians have a say about schooling in their local areas? An alternative to that system is the NHS model of provision, a service run by professionals and managers, with little or no local democratic involvement, other than in public health.
As someone that has been involved in politics (for the Liberal Democrats) since the 1960s, I have strong views on this topic, especially as I have spent my whole adult life working in the education sector, as a teacher, lecturer, civil servant – albeit briefly – columnist and blogger, and entrepreneur. For me, local democracy is important. For others, it seems the need for local democracy has been declining in importance over the decades.
When I was at university, local authorities ran local education; they trained and appointed the teachers – often in association with the main Christian denominations – set the level of spending on schooling, and built and ran the buildings.
After the Robbins Report into Higher Education in the 1960s, local authorities grip on education began to weaken, and central government began to take more control over decision-making about schools and how they were managed.
First, the training of teachers was removed form local authorities into higher education, so by 1992 when all public sector high education became centrally managed, local authorities no longer controlled this vital resource.
At the same time, the consequences of the 1988 Education Reform Act saw a National Curriculum introduced. Funding was devolved to schools, significantly reducing the power of Education Committees to decide local funding priorities. The Blair government then effectively abolished Education Committees, putting power over schooling in the hands of a single Cabinet member, often with only weak scrutiny of the service.
However, notionally schools were still mostly community schools, except where they were under the control of charities and the churches.
The creation of academies by the Labour government of Gordon Brown, and their subsequent enthusiastic uptake by the coalition government of 2010-15 by Michael Gove, removed almost all the remaining powers of locally elected councils over the running of schools, while allowing the churches to retain their control over voluntary aided schools that had become academies.
By the present time, most councils now have children’s services, almost always run by a social work professional, with the lead officer in charge of schools being a second or even third tier position. The national funding formula left councils with few choices to make about schools, except over poisoned chalices like SEND and home to school transport.
Councils taking children into care could not even direct academies to provide a place for the child, but on the other hand were forced to deal with decisions on exclusion of pupils made by schools.
Is the system better run now than in the 1960s. The big test currently facing much of England is how local areas will deal with falling school rolls. Who will decide on which schools close or take reduced intakes? Should there be local democratic debate about this issue, or, in our fast-moving modern worlds, are local views irrelevant?
I am on the side of those that still believe there is a role for local communities in the management of schooling, and do not like the NHS style model that is increasingly commonplace. However, because education never polls highly as an issue during general elections, I fear we will have a schooling system designed and run by professionals, and with little or no scrutiny or oversight. We will be the poorer for this outcome.
This post was written for the University of Liverpool’s School of Education blog in November. however, the link has been broken, so i am reposting my thoughts here on my own blog.
Has the funding of SEND just become even more complicated for 2026-27? Under the arrangements announced by the DfE, cash has moved from the High Needs Block to other funding streams within the Dedicated Schools Grant. Dedicated schools grant (DSG): 2026 to 2027 – GOV.UK
Now I am no expert in schools funding, and the labyrinthine calculations employed by the DfE in deciding both the size of the cake and its distribution. However, it does seem as if all local authorities will see their High Needs Block funding stream reduced in 2026-27 when compared with 2025-26. As seem usual, some London boroughs have been less affected by the change than other upper tier authorities, with 10 of the 20 local authorities with the smallest percentage decrease being London boroughs. There are no London boroughs within the top 20 authorities with the largest percentage reductions, with the highest ranked London borough coming in at 23rd place.
Oxfordshire, where I served as the Cabinet member until May’s elections, has seen a decline of 18.75% in its High Needs block. That decline ranks it in the top 25 local authorities for the largest reductions in their High Needs Block. Hopefully, the cash has been distributed to schools, but the Schools Block for the County has also reduced, by around £5 million – effectively a standstill. No doubt the reduction is due to falling pupil numbers on a formula that is heavily driven by pupil numbers. The implications for schools faced with falling rolls was discussed in my blog post How might a school react to falling rolls? | John Howson
What does the DfE say about the High Needs block changes?
16. As the existing SEND system will continue for 2026 to 2027, the Department’s assessment is that limiting the funding in this way will not necessarily translate into negative impacts on children and young people with SEND and will not mean that we see negative equalities impacts. This is because the requirements on local authorities to secure provision to meet the needs of children and young people with SEND will remain in place, and local authorities must meet these requirements. The consequent budget pressures will therefore lead to accruing DSG deficits rather than having a negative impact on SEND provision.
And 17.We recognise that the size of deficits that some local authorities may accrue while the statutory override is in place may not be manageable with local resources alone, and will bring forward arrangements to assist with them as part of broader SEND reform plans, as explained in the Government’s provisional local government finance settlement document. Given that local authorities will continue to be protected from the adverse impact of those deficits through the so-called “statutory override”, and because we are seeking to protect school level allocations of high needs funding through the conditions of grant attached to the DSG, we do not envisage any adverse impact on those children and young people with protected characteristics, including those with disabilities. The national funding formula for schools and high needs 26-27
Of course, this assumes that the cash channelled through the Schools Block of the DSG is actually spent on SEND by schools, and accounted for as such in academy and MAT budgets. I am sure that will be the case.
Still, those special schools that see the base funding per pupil stuck at £10,000 for another year will no doubt wonder what has happened to inflation accounting.
All we can hope for is that it won’t be too long before the SEND reforms are announced. However, with consultation session running into 2026, it is difficult to see how SEND reforms and local government reorganisation won’t become mixed up together, with who knows what results. Perhaps the new arrangements announced for Surrey might give an indication. Hopefully, the fact that West Northamptonshire has the largest reduction in the High Needs Block of any upper tier authority (25%+) is due to its past history, not its present resourcing.
I don’t often comment on Children’s Services in local government, preferring to stick to education about which I hopefully know more. However, having served a period of time as a Cabinet member for Children’s Services in a shire county, I couldn’t resist reading the report published last week by the DfE from the commissioner put into Devon County Council to oversee the improvement oft heir Children’s services.
There were two interesting comments from that report caught my eye.
The first deal with the issue of local government re-organisation: not strictly part of the Commissioner’s brief, but an interesting and thoughtful comment
“Although not in the remit of this particular piece of work it would be wrong not to highlight a second significant risk. The current round of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) consultations is already consuming large amounts of political and operational time. However, that isn’t the main risk. The bigger concern would be for any recommendation which leads to the break up and fragmentation of Devon CC and the existing arrangements for children’s services. Given the positive improvement trajectory I have seen and identified in this report and the critical importance of having a well led and well functioning children’s services for the local population anything that breaks that model would risk stopping the existing work in its tracks with an even bigger risk that things would quickly slip backwards. As stated, this is not strictly in my brief to comment on, but the potential impact of LGR on services that are now showing signs of improvement should be appropriately considered by government as part of their decision making process.”
The second comment was, of course, interesting to me as a Liberal Democrat.
“Following the recent local elections Devon now has new political leadership. The Lib Dem group have made an impressive ‘fresh start’ and they are very clear that they will be judged on the improvements they are determined to see in Children’s Services. Children’s services are undoubtedly the top priority for Devon County Council. Three cabinet members (including the Leader) hold portfolios across Children’s services – Education, Lead Member and SEND. My observations of two cabinet meetings and scrutiny alongside additional face to face meetings assures me that the Leader and his team are very serious about bringing about the improvements needed.”
Managing a Children’s Services is probably a much more complex task than managing adult social services in local authorities, as Children’s Services encompasses not only the whole of the remaining education functions of a local authority, but also children in care or at risk, plus youth justice, and youth services, as well as relationships with the NHS over SEND. This wide range of activities may be why so many local authorities have received adverse reports over the past few years.
Indeed, an analysis of the reports by the size of the authority may well help to support the view of Devon’s commissioner about local government review. Is there a minimum size for a Children’s Service to function effectively, and does it need good political oversight?
Earlier this year, I produced a report looking at the changes in pupil teacher ratios over the past fifty years as between London boroughs and the rest of England’s local authorities that have remained on the same boundaries since 1974. London boroughs generally have had some of the ‘best’ PTRs throughout the past 50 years. As a result, it was no surprise to see how well schools in the London boroughs performed in the KS2 results for 2025, published by the DfE yesterday.
It is interesting to look at just one measure, the percentage of pupils achieving the higher standard in Reading, and the percentage change in this measure over the past decade or so.
2015/16
2024/25
higher
higher
difference
LA
Reading
Reading
Waltham Forest
15%
44%
29%
Redbridge
19%
45%
26%
Westminster
18%
43%
25%
Haringey
20%
43%
23%
Newham
18%
41%
23%
Hammersmith and Fulham
24%
46%
22%
Luton
11%
33%
22%
Merton
22%
44%
22%
Barking and Dagenham
15%
37%
22%
Enfield
15%
37%
22%
Sutton
25%
47%
22%
Hackney
21%
42%
21%
Brent
16%
37%
21%
Barnet
24%
44%
20%
Bexley
20%
40%
20%
Lewisham
19%
39%
20%
Southwark
19%
39%
20%
Slough
19%
39%
20%
Tower Hamlets
18%
38%
20%
Birmingham
14%
34%
20%
Leicester
11%
31%
20%
Trafford
27%
47%
20%
Solihull
20%
39%
19%
Hillingdon
19%
38%
19%
Ealing
18%
37%
19%
Wolverhampton
14%
33%
19%
Barnsley
13%
32%
19%
Thurrock
13%
32%
19%
Doncaster
11%
30%
19%
Camden
23%
42%
19%
Greenwich
22%
41%
19%
Croydon
17%
36%
19%
Richmond upon Thames
36%
54%
18%
Kingston upon Hull, City of
15%
33%
18%
Kensington and Chelsea
30%
48%
18%
Blackburn with Darwen
13%
31%
18%
Walsall
13%
31%
18%
Knowsley
12%
30%
18%
North East Lincolnshire
11%
29%
18%
Lambeth
23%
40%
17%
Stockport
22%
39%
17%
Warrington
21%
38%
17%
Stockton-on-Tees
16%
33%
17%
Bromley
27%
44%
17%
Wandsworth
25%
42%
17%
Harrow
24%
41%
17%
Milton Keynes
19%
36%
17%
Sandwell
13%
30%
17%
Leaving aside the City of London, with its one primary school that has been excluded form the dataset, 28 of the London boroughs appear in the table. This compares with 20 local authorities outside of London. None of the latter are ‘shire’ counties. Not even the Home Counties of Surrey or Hertfordshire make it into the list.
Looking at the other end of the table, there is a preponderance of counties authorities in the list
Tameside
15%
28%
13%
Southend-on-Sea
20%
33%
13%
South Gloucestershire
20%
33%
13%
Telford and Wrekin
19%
32%
13%
St. Helens
18%
31%
13%
Rochdale
14%
27%
13%
Portsmouth
14%
27%
13%
Blackpool
13%
26%
13%
Oldham
13%
26%
13%
Rutland
23%
36%
13%
Cheshire East
22%
35%
13%
Cambridgeshire
22%
35%
13%
Lancashire
17%
30%
13%
Bedford
16%
29%
13%
Cheshire West and Chester
22%
34%
12%
Havering
22%
34%
12%
Herefordshire, County of
21%
33%
12%
Nottingham
15%
27%
12%
Gateshead
20%
32%
12%
Cornwall
20%
32%
12%
Torbay
20%
32%
12%
East Sussex
19%
31%
12%
South Tyneside
18%
30%
12%
Derbyshire
18%
30%
12%
Suffolk
18%
30%
12%
Swindon
18%
30%
12%
Derby
14%
26%
12%
Warwickshire
23%
35%
12%
Oxfordshire
23%
35%
12%
Gloucestershire
23%
35%
12%
Southampton
17%
29%
12%
Hampshire
23%
34%
11%
Devon
23%
34%
11%
Bristol, City of
22%
33%
11%
North Somerset
22%
33%
11%
Lincolnshire
17%
28%
11%
Central Bedfordshire
17%
28%
11%
County Durham
20%
31%
11%
Calderdale
20%
31%
11%
Shropshire
20%
31%
11%
Sefton
18%
29%
11%
Norfolk
18%
29%
11%
East Riding of Yorkshire
18%
28%
10%
Wiltshire
23%
33%
10%
Darlington
22%
32%
10%
West Berkshire
25%
34%
9%
Bath and North East Somerset
27%
36%
9%
Brighton and Hove
26%
35%
9%
Northumberland
21%
29%
8%
Isle of Wight
16%
23%
7%
Even among the unitary authorities in the list, some, such as the East riding of Yorkshire and West Berkshire might be considered predominantly rural in nature.
So, what might be deduced from this data? Parental help does make a difference. Has the ‘gentrification’ of Walthamstow help propel it to the top of the table? To consider the issue of parental support versus government funding for schools it is worth considering the present percentage of achievement at this higher grade by schools in two parliamentary constituencies that I am familiar with; Tottenham, where I started my teaching career, and Oxford East, part of the city where I have lived and worked for the past 45 years.
SCHOOL Higher Grade RWM in KS” 2025
TOTENHAM
OXFORD EAST
A
35
B
27
C
23
D
18
18
E
17
17
F
15
G
15
H
15
I
14
14
J
13
13
K
13
13
L
13
M
12
N
11
11
O
10
10
P
9
9
Q
9
R
8
S
8
T
7
7
U
7
7
V
7
7
W
7
7
X
6
Y
6
Z
5
5
AA
5
AB
5
AC
4
4
AD
4
4
AE
3
3
AF
3
AG
2
3
AH
2
AI
2
AJ
0
0
AK
0
total
322
193
schools
28
27
average
11.5
7.1
Both might be seen as constituencies with significant pockets of deprivation, but also areas subject to ‘gentrification’ in recent years. Schools in Oxford East have a profile with lower percentages than schools in Tottenham. How much of the difference can be ascribed to parents, and how much to better funding for London schools? Of course, class sizes also matter. But, as both are urban areas, the issue of small rural schools doesn’t really arise as it would if one compared Oxford East with its neighbouring constituency of Henley.
This work is at an early stage, but it does pose the question about the deep structure of school funding and, especially, the use of average salary data in any calculations in the funding of schools.
In January 2025, I penned a list of suggested amendments to the Schools Bill going through parliament. Well, the Bill is still going, and we still don’t know the outcome for SEND. But what of my other suggestions – listed below? Some, such as reducing the number of MATs has recently gained credibility on platforms such as LinkedIn. The idea of on-line schools has also gained attention as their use by ‘home schoolers’ increases.
The other suggestions have not yet been taken u, although a Select Committee at Westminster did discuss home to school transport in their session yesterday.
I still stand by all these suggestions made in this press release.
Time for radical action
Long-time education campaigner and recruitment authority, John Howson, calls upon the government to be more radical in its approach to education and schools.
My suggestions included
Academies
Some serious amalgamations might reduce overhead costs. Could each LA area have no more than 5 MATs (1 each for CoE; RC, special schools and 2 for all other primary and secondary schools).
How much would that save in salary costs of senior staff? Would this release cash for teaching and learning?
I also suggested a new on-line school for all children missing education because they don’t have a school place along with some other important changes.
All pupils on a school roll
(i) All young people not in school, and between the ages of 5 and 16, and not registered either as home educated young people or with a registered private provider on the list of DfE approved schools, must be registered with a maintained on-line school,
Notes
As the DfE accredits on-line private provision it should be able to create a category of on-line maintained school. This would allow the education of all state-funded young people to be regulated and inspected. It would end the practice of EOTAS (education other than at school) prescribed by s61 of the 2014 Education Act.
It would also allow for children moving into an area mid-year to immediately be placed on the roll of this school pending placement in a mainstream or special school. Many pupils with EHCPs transferring mid-year cannot be allocated a place in a special school because there are insufficient places. This would allow for oversight of their education by the local authority pending a placement. In a local authority such as Oxfordshire, there may be as many as 200+ pupils waiting for a school place as the school-year progresses.
This would also assist those children forced to free home at short notice due to domestic abuse. At present, they leave everything behind and it cannot be forwarded in case it reveals the location of the refuge or other accommodation. This on-line school would provide registration without revealing a location where pupil’s work could be forwarded and education continued until the situation was resolved.
Those children in years 10 and 11 offered a part-time place at an FE college where the school doesn’t consent that are currently transferred to elective home education to allow funding to be agreed could also be transferred to the roll of this school.
Free school transport extended to 18 to match ‘learning leaving age’.
(i) In Schedule 35B of the 1996 education Act replace ‘of compulsory school age’ with ‘Eighteen’.
(ii) The provision free transport for pupils beyond of compulsory school age and up to the end of the school year in which the child attains 18 will only apply where the child received free travel before the of the compulsory school age and remains at the same school.
(iii) Where the school a child attended up to the end of the compulsory school age does not provide post-16 education, transport will be provided free to the nearest post-16 education provision operating under schools’ regulation or the nearest Sixth Form College operating under Further Education regulations.
(iv) Where a child transfers to a college or other setting operating under Further Education regulations that is not a Sixth Form College, the college will have a duty to provide, either free transport or make other suitable arrangements in a situation where the young person would have met the conditions for free transport had they remained in the school they attended until the end of their compulsory school age, up to the end of the academic year where the child reaches the age of 18.
(v) Within the boundary of the London boroughs, school transport will be the responsibility of Transport or London. In combined Authorities with a mayor, the provision of school transport may be either a local authority ort a mayoral function by agreement. Where there is no agreement, the local authority will be responsible for any transport.
(vi) The responsible body, either a local authority or the mayor, must produce an annual home to school transport authority for the guidance of parents and other interested in the provision of home to school transport.
Note
This clause is to bring the transport arrangements into line with the learning leaving age of 18
Ending of selective education being treated as parental choice for transport decisions
(i) Where a local authority or other body responsibly for state funded secondary school education between the ages of 11 and 18 requires the passing of some form of selection for admittance to a school, regardless of whether the section process is administered by the school, a local authority or any other body, then a child admitted to their nearest selective school, or the nearest school with an available place, will be eligible for free transport up to age 18 while they remain on roll of the school, if they are an eligible child within Schedule 35B of the 1996 education Act.
Note
This clause prevents Kent and other LA with selective schools from regarding selective schools as a parental choice and, as a consequence, not providing free transport to children living more than 3 miles from the selective school.
Provision of sufficient teacher numbers in all subjects and all areas.
(i) Local authorities are encouraged to work with multi-academy trusts, dioceses and other promoters of schools to ensure a sufficient supply of suitable qualified teachers to ensure the delivery of the curriculum in such schools.
(ii) Where no other provision exists, local authorities may establish and operate initial teacher training provision, as an approved provider by the Department for Education.
(iii) Local authorities will produce an annual report to Council on the adequacy of staffing of schools within the authority.
(iv) It shall be the duty of schools to cooperate with the local authority in providing such information as required by the local authority for the production of an annual report on the staffing of schools within the authority.
Note
With increasing teacher shortages, it is necessary to ensure a sufficient number of teachers at a local level. This clause provides for local authorities to offer initial teacher education where insufficient places are available locally in some or all phases and subjects taught by schools.
Removal of right for MATs to ‘pool’ balances of schools within the MAT in annual accounts
(i) When presenting their annual accounts, a mutli-academy trust must show the balances for each individual school in the account and must not ‘pool’ reserves into a single figure for the trust.
(ii) The DfE shall publish each year a list of the salaries of all staff in academies and academy trusts earning more than £100,000 alongside the salary of the DCS for the same area where the academy or MAT are located.
Note
This clause seeks to ensure that funds allocated to schools are spent at that school and not transferred to another school, and especially not to be used by schools in different local authority areas. The second part requires the DfE to collate information that is in MAT or academy annual accounts. but DfE should provide the data as part of their statistical information to the sector.
Schools Forum
(i) The Cabinet Member or Committee Chair in a Committee system of local government responsible for supporting schools with the DSG and for the central block shall be a voting member of the Schools Forum. No substitute shall be allowed.
Note
This put the LA representative with control of EYFS and HNB funding on the same level of engagements as schools and others in respect of membership of a schools forum and end the anomaly of being permitted to be a member, but not to vote.
1n the autumn of 1997, Baroness Estelle Morris, at that time a junior minister in the DfE, in the new Labour government of Tony Blair, opened a conference about recruiting more ethnic minority students to become a teacher. The conference was organised by the then Teacher Training Agency. That conference was held in East London, and was followed by two more in Leeds and Birmingham.
Fast forward to the ITT census produced by the DfE today, and ask the question: how successful has the campaign to recruit certain ethnic groups into teaching been since that first conference nearly 30 years ago? Initial teacher training: trainee number census 2025 to 2026 – GOV.UK
Looking at the group that has found most difficultly in becoming a teacher over the years – Black African/Black Caribbean – there still seem to be big challenges looking at today’s data. Whether these are because students from this ethnic grouping aren’t attracted to parts of the country where there are few of their compatriots or whether there are other reasons cannot be determined just from the numbers.
However, over 500 courses have no candidates recorded from this group in the data published in Table 12 today. Just over 900 courses have between one and four candidates from the ethnic group. A further 83 courses have the number suppressed as being too low, as it might allow an individual to be identified.
A quick review of courses with the highest percentage (over 50% of each course code) shows that 24 are courses run by providers in London; just three are from outside London, and for three the name does not provide a clue to the location.
Looking at the courses with more than 100 candidates from the Black ethnic group: four are located in London – two each from UCL and Teach First – and the fifth is a national SCITT.
As might be expected, the University of East London, and several other London post 1992 universities, feature in the list of providers with between 25% and 50% of course numbers from the Black group, each with several courses in this percentage range. Most other pre-1992 universities and other post-1992 universities and the SCITTs in London have many of their courses in the 15%-25% group of providers. Few, if any, London providers feature in the list with zero percentage from the black group.
While it is good that courses in London do seem to be attracting applications from the Black ethnic group, there are still many courses in large parts of the country where that seems not to be the case. Does this matter? Would a ‘token’ representative on a single course in an institution be anything more than a token. Should we encourage such students to be trailblazers r should we accept that outside of the conurbations and a few university towns, graduates from the black ethnic group are still relatively rare.
I went to school in the 1960s with one of the few Black pupils in the school. He went on to become a teacher when Black teachers were even thinner on the ground than now, even in London.
The percentage of accepted ITT candidates within each nationality group for selected subjects for 2024/25 and 2025/26
Percentage of accepted candidates
UK and Irish national
EEA national
Other nationality
2024/25
2025/26
2024/25
2025/26
2024/25
2025/26
Total
88%
86%
5%
5%
8%
9%
Primary
94%
94%
2%
3%
4%
3%
Secondary
84%
82%
6%
6%
10%
13%
STEM Subjects
76%
74%
5%
5%
19%
22%
Physics
43%
32%
3%
2%
54%
66%
English
93%
93%
3%
2%
4%
5%
Mathematics
81%
81%
5%
5%
13%
14%
High Potential ITT (HPITT) route and undergraduate routes are not included in this data.
Subject-level candidate totals will not sum to the total candidate number due to duplication caused by candidates applying for multiple subjects.
The footnote about undergraduate routes should not be of concern as there are relatively few such courses for secondary subjects, and the numbers on primary undergraduate courses have been declining over the longer-term.
Of much more concern is the decline in percentage of accepted candidates for physics from the UK and Ireland, down from 43% last year to 32% this year. This has been balanced by and increase from 54% to 66% for candidates from outside the UK and EEA areas.
As there has bene a dramatic increase in the numbers of trainees in physics, does this matter?
On these percentages, the increase in UK and Irish trainees has been from only around 185 last year to 220 this year. That seems like a very small number and worth investigating to see if I am correct?
If I am correct, then the key issue is, where will the trainees from the rest of the world be able to teach? Will the present government’s stricter policies on immigration mean that they won’t be able to teach in England, or as graduates earning a good salary will they be given visas?
Of course, they may choose to teach in the new British state sponsored selective school being established in both India and the UAE that was recently approved by the Labour government.
British Education is a global export, regardless of the PISA scores of home students, and the destination of trainees, both within the state and private systems, as well as overseas, is an important piece of information Minister should pay more attention to than they do at present.
The number of Uk trainees is likely to be boosted in physics by those training through the High Potential route (Formerly known as Teach First), However, the data for those candidates is not included in the census this year.
No doubt there is room for some interesting parliamentary questions about trainee teachers and where they come from and where they go on to teach, especially for those that receive bursaries and other financial support from the State.
John Howson 