This is going to be one of my ‘nerdier’ posts. Children missing education are a small but important group of young people. In the autumn term of 2025/26, the DfE estimated that there were around 34,700 such pupils in England – down for 39,200 in the previous autumn term of 2024/25. Across the whole year 2024/25, some 143,000 children were estimated by the DfE as missing education at some point in the year. Children missing education: methodology – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK
The DfE relies upon local authorities for the collection of the data. The re-organisation of the shire counties over the next few years may well affect data quality, where new ‘unitary authorities’ are created and new teams will need to be assembled. So, how are ‘missing children’ defined?
Definition of children missing education
CME does include children of compulsory school age who are not registered at a school and are not receiving suitable education elsewhere, even if these children:
• Are in the process of applying for a school place, even children within the first 15 days of the application process
• Have been offered a school place for a future date but have not yet started
• Are receiving EHE, if this education is unsuitable
• Have been recorded as CME for an extended period: for example, where their whereabouts is unclear or unknown4 When EHE should be deemed CME An EHE child whose education is deemed unsuitable should no longer be classified as an EHE child and should be classified as CME.
Section 436A of the Education Act 1996, is a duty on local authorities to make arrangements to try and identify children of compulsory school age who are not registered pupils at schools and are not receiving suitable education otherwise than at a school. Although there is no legal obligation on local authorities to classify a child as CME at a particular stage of the statutory process under sections 436A and 437 of the Act, we would expect a local authority classify a child as CME once they have deemed that the child is not receiving suitable education (which would include having insufficient information to reach such a conclusion). If local authorities have not had an opportunity to assess whether a child is receiving suitable education, that does not mean that the child should automatically be classified as not receiving suitable education. Not knowing does not mean the child is not being suitably educated, though the local authority may ultimately reach this conclusion if they have asked for information and not received satisfactory responses. Elective Home Education and Children Missing Education
How assiduous are local authorities at collecting this information? Difficult to say, but it is interesting that 11 of the 33 London boroughs have a rate of 0.1%, the best possible. This is along with six local authorities in the North East, and five counties. However, no local authority in the East of England features in those LAs with a 0.1% return, the best being 0.3 and the worst 1.0%.
Overall, the average autumn term rate fell from 0.5% in 2023/24 – the first year of collection to 0.4% in 2025/26.
Why does the issue of children missing education concern me. My posts on Jacob’s Law shows why I thinking understanding the problem is important Time for Jacob’s Law | John Howson
My suggestion last summer was for a virtual school for all such children otherwise classified as missing education A Virtual School for those missing school? | John Howson This could be especially important for young people with SEND awaiting a school place as well as those that move into an area mid-year when all school places in their year group are full.
I would encourage local politicians to check their percentage of missing children, and how well officers track such children. It was an Ombudsman’s report that originally sparked my interest in this issue. Education is a fundamental Human Right | John Howson
The original paper to Oxfordshire’s Scrutiny Committee in 2019 highlighted 9,600 records that were incomplete at that time and the exercise Oxfordshire officers took to update their records! aebhdfh I wonder how many local authorities have conducted such a thorough examination of their records.
Hopefully, now the DfE is collecting data, more attention is being paid to children that might slip though the net.
Reading this new report from the Centre for Educational Systems on accountability in systems International Comparative Education Reviews & Resources | CES Centre for Education Systems set me wondering about the accountability of the school system in England at present. To help focus my thinking, I considered one of the key issues facing many policymakers in education at present: declining pupil numbers or ‘falling rolls’ as it is more commonly called.
My starting point was to look at the last time ‘falling rolls’ had a significant effect on the school system in England. The last serious occurrence was at the end of the 1970s, and into the early 1980s. The other periods of declining rolls since then have either been less significant in scale or offset by changes in the learning leaving age, as when it was increased from 16 to 18.
In the late 1970s, as the minority Labour government trundled towards its inevitable fate, education in England was still being described by academics as either ‘a partnership’ or ‘a locally service nationally administered’. In reality, the governance of schooling was on a journey from local decision-making to almost total national policymaking, or more realistically policy interference from the centre in those areas where policymakers at Westminster have an interest. The accountability strand within governance at the ‘macro’ level has been largely overlooked. Accountability of individual institutions, such as ofsted had been the subject of many discussions.
This lack of consideration for accountability relating to policy in the school sector brings me back to ‘falling rolls’ as a case study. At the end of the 1970s, I had just completed almost a decade working in Haringey in North London; from January 1971 to December 1977 as a teacher at Tottenham School (now long disappeared from the scene), and then from September 1977 to August 1980 as deputy warden of the borough’s teachers’ centre – what would now be called a professional development centre, where such establishment still exist- developing courses mainly for secondary school teachers. Between September 1979, and my resignation in August 1980, I was on secondment – on full pay; those were the days – to study for the MSc in Governance of Education at Oxford University.
My role at the Teachers’ Centre, in an institution at the centre of the borough’s schooling life, allowed me to witness how falling rolls were dealt with from 1977 onwards in Haringey. In passing, it is also worth noting that 1979 was a traumatic year for schooling in Haringey. During the ‘winter of discontent’ the school caretakers went on strike and the schools were closed for a number of weeks. National government showed no interest in how the strike was handled, and ignored trying to enforce the legal requirement that schools remain open for 190 days a year. It was not until a parent, Dr Meade, took Haringey to law that the national government, through the Secretary of State took any interest, and the strike ended.
It is interesting to compare that ‘hands-off’ attitude of the Westminster government in 1979 to what happened in 2020 with the arrival of the covid pandemic, and the actions of the DfE throughout the pandemic in order to see how policymaking has changed. Although, even during covid, the DfE seemed to do little more than set high level policies, and left schools, MATs and local authorities to work out the details on the ground. There seemed to be little consideration of accountability during the pandemic and it will be interesting to see what the Covid Inquiry has to say about how schooling was handled during the pandemic.
But, back to 1977, and ‘falling rolls’ in Haringey. The borough was generally seen as a safe Labour borough at the time, having only run by the Conservatives between 1968 and 1972, following the Labour debacle at the 1968 local elections: a debacle that current followers of political fortunes might want to revisit ahead of the 2026 elections in London, to be fought on many of the same boundaries.
In the late 1970s, officers in Haringey were aware that when projecting school rolls into the 1980s, there would be too many places, especially in the secondary sector, where a new school, Northumberland Park, had been built on the eastern edge of the borough, even though this was where pupil numbers were likely to fall fastest, as the declining birthrate together with the reduction in Commonwealth immigration, especially from the Caribbean islands, was likely to exacerbate the school population decline.
Officers created a taskforce to review rolls. This may have also been stimulated by an internal survey into sixth form teaching in Haringey’s schools, undertaken by the Borough’s advisory service in 1976 that revealed extremely small sixth form teaching groups in many subjects across the borough. If groups were already small, I expect senior officers were interested in what would happen to secondary schools when rolls fell?
Afterall, the secondary schools in Haringey had only just become fully comprehensive in response to the Wilson government’s Circular 10/65 on the phasing out of selective secondary education.
In the spring of 1977, officers produced what was known as a ‘green ‘paper, setting out options for change, including the naming of schools likely to face closure. In view of previous leaks of confidential documents, it was decided to publish the report in full. In a borough with a lively set of pressure groups ranging from teacher unions, represented on the Education Committee, to a branch of CASE (The Campaign for the Advancement of State Education), not surprisingly a row erupted over the plans.
It is worth noting that the DES (as the DfE was then called) knew about ‘falling rolls’ from the early 1970s onwards. As early as 1971, the part of the DES responsible for the school building programme reduced the number of new primary school places being created, although, as with Northumberland Park, new secondary schools were still being authorised. In 1974, cutbacks in teacher training numbers were announced by the Teacher’s Branch at the DES, but it was only in June 1977, a month after Haringey’s paper was published that the DES issued their first circular on the subject to local authorities, Circular 5/77. Governance of the system as a whole seemed non-existent, even where specialist branches within the Des were making appropriate changes to meet the emerging trends.
The merits of the five different schemes in the Haringey paper does not concern us here. What is more interesting is that it took until 1983 for reorganisation to actually take place in Haringey, and then only after the Secretary of State gave his consent in February 1982 to the revised and more draconian re-organisation plans. By then, nearly six years had elapsed, and the Chief Education Officer had moved on from his position.
What was interesting in the 1970s was the fact that there was planning locally, and also open debate in a borough with a strong set of pressure groups willing to discuss policy in a framework of an Education Committee involving many elected councillors and key un-elected members, including figures from the Church of England and Roman Catholic dioceses, but little apparent oversight from the DES. Clearly, not a ‘partnership’, and realistically not ‘a national system locally administered, except in the widest sense of the phrase.
Compare that climate of relatively open debate with a strong local press, and local decision-making, with the current situation, where the local authority cabinet system puts great power in the hands of one local politician, and the officers, and where the historical issue of the voluntary school sector involvement in planning is further complicated these days by the existence of academies and multi academy trusts.
Governance may be easier today, but to what extent has local input from interest groups been removed from the process? To whom are decision-makers accountable in the 2020s, if they make mistakes? Does the DfE show any more interest in accountability over issues affecting the system, such as ‘falling rolls’ than it did in the 1970s?
Locally, perhaps all council Scrutiny Committees should have an annual review of education provision on their workplan that would allow regular discussions on how place planning was being managed across maintained and academy schools in a locality.
But, with the end of the semblance of ‘partnership’, still seemingly in existence in the 1970s, what role should the government at Westminster play today in ensuring a coherent and cost-effective solution to the falling rolls issue? That question sheds a light on the accountability for the schooling system as a whole in England at the present time.
For some, it seems the accountability of the market still dominates thinking in Whitehall, and there is no place for whole-system planning at any level. Government guidance on dealing with falling rolls, even at the level of ministerial statements might show there was some coherent thinking about problem solving nationally by the present government. How schooling is governed and what accountability measures should exist today, is worthy of debate. I don’t think the present Bill before parliament will add much, if anything, to the debate.
Primary schools are no longer the 5-11 schools of yesteryear. Even before the present cycle of falling rolls started affecting schools, especially in London, schools across the primary sector had been extending their age range downwards into what has traditionally been seen as the province of state nursery schools and the private sector.
The data from autumn 2025 vacancies has been analysed from some 254 primary schools covering the age range up to age eleven and starting at the age of five or below that age – thus, not including infant schools, as they don’t go up to age eleven.
The table below shows the results
Age range of school
number
Percentage of total
2-11
36
14%
3-11
95
38%
4-11
105
41%
5-11
18
7%
3-11 or 4-11 schools dominated the schools that advertised for a headteacher during autumn 2025, accounting for 80% of the total. Interestingly, there were more adverts for 2-11 schools than for the traditional 5-11 primary schools. Such downward extension of age ranges should help to answer the question, what do primary schools do with children not toilet trained? The answer, as you extend the age range downwards, and the likelihood of such an occurrence increases, must be to put in place expertise to deal with the situation as well as to seek government measures to help parents understand the importance of children being able to cope in social settings such as schools.
As more primary schools face falling rolls, and hence the probability of unused space within the school site, will these schools also extend their age range downwards to become 2-11 schools? If so, and I see no real reason why they wouldn’t do so, what will this do to the private nursery and childminder markets?
Fewer children, more competition, and the ability for families to drop all their children aged between 5-11 in the same place must be a powerful selling point for state primary schools, especially if the additional children recruited to the school roll replace revenue lost to schools from falling rolls, especially at a time when the school funding formula is heavily predicated upon pupil numbers.
Are 2-11 schools evenly distributed across England? The sample of 36 such schools from the autumn term is too small to yet make a definitive judgement. To do so one would need to interrogate the DfE’s database of schools, but the results are interesting. In the 2025 survey, two regions, the North West (10) and the West Midlands (8) account for half of the 2-11 schools that advertised for a new headteacher during the autumn of 2025.
While there was no region without any adverts from such schools, three regions, London, the East Midlands and the North East only had one school of 2-11 recorded in the survey. The East of England had two schools in the survey, and the South East, three schools. Yorkshire and the Humber and the South West regions each had five schools in the survey from the 2-11 age range.
Might extending their age range downwards be a solution to some schools in London facing possible closure from falling rolls? It is certainly a question worth asking if it can increase the schools’ income to a point where it remains financially viable and able to service its community.
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
Yesterday, the DfE announced the National Funding Formula (NFF) for 2026/27 The national funding formula for schools The formula covers schools and local authority delivered central services
Unlike last year, there is no section on the High Needs Block that deals with SEND funding. The details will be announced later, at some unspecified time. One other small change seems to be in the calculation of the sparsity index, where the footnote from the 2025/26 NFF document seems to be missing from the main document this year.
Last year, there as a footnote that stated in a footnote on page 26 – paragraphs were not numbered last year – that “6 A compatible school means one of the relevant phases which a pupil could attend. Selective grammar schools are not considered when identifying the second nearest compatible school, but faith schools are included.”
This year, paragraph 25 states that “Eligibility for sparsity funding depends on the distance the pupils living closest to the school would have to travel to their next nearest compatible school, and the average number of pupils per year group.” However, there is no comment about what is a compatible school.
Overall, the minimum per pupil funding for primary pupils increases from £4955 to £5115, and for secondary pupils up to year 11, from £6,455 to £6,640. Schools
in IDACI band G will, as before, receive no additional funding through that factor. If they don’t qualify for additional funds through other factors, and some schools won’t, as 62.5% of LSOAs are in IDACI Band G, this could be a challenging year for them.
Many of these schools will no doubt turn to parents for support, or perhaps more will follow the north London school, and look to bring in additional income from operating overseas alongside the many private schools that already have overseas campuses?
With the budget next week, and the local government settlement not being announced any earlier than last year, plus the delay in the High Needs Block announcement, this is going to be a tough budget setting time for schools and local authorities between now and February, when the upper tier local authorities responsible for the NFF must set their council budgets.
Perhaps the High Needs block will feature as a rabbit in the Chancellor’s budget speech to make everyone feel better that the government has found a solution to the massive deficits protected by the override that was extended to March 2027.
Reading the document, I was also struck by the fact that there are more references to local authorities than to the ‘schools forum’. Has the latter run its course as a decision-making body? Is it time to review its future, and certainly its membership?
My 2021 blog post included White minority groups as well as other ethnic groups, when creating the totals, and ignored the issue of uncollected data, whether because of refusal or the necessary field not being completed in the census to allow for ethnic recognition. This post just considers the five key groupings (Other Ethnic Group, Mixed, Asian/Asian British, Black/Black British and White).
Looking back over the whole period of the School Workforce Survey, from between 2011-12 to 2023-24, the percentage of headteachers recorded as White fell by 2.3% from 20,608 to 19,355 during this time period. During the same period, there were just under a thousand more headteachers across the other four groups.
Across the 15 years data has been Workforce Census data has been collected, the four ethnic groups have increased their headship numbers by an average of 64 additional headteacher per year. The Asian/Asian British group did best, averaging just under 30 additional headteacher per year. The Black/Black British group increased their number of headships by little more than 16 per year on average.
Taking the sex of the respondents into account meant that there were 48 more Black/Black British women heads over the period and 31 more Black/Black British male as headteachers.
Asian/Asian British women increased their numbers from 150 to 298, and Asian/Asian British men, from 56 to 112.
The Other Ethnic Groupa plus the Mixed Group increased by 124 women headteachers and 41 men as headteachers.
How accurate these figures are, of course depends upon how many minority heads either refused to disclose their ethnicity or the information wasn’t collected by the time of the census – presumably because a box was left empty.
Over the time period the number refusing to disclose ethnicity increased from 103 to 235: not a large increase. However, more concerning is the increase from 494 in the first census to 1,911 in the 2023/24 census from those described as ‘information not yet obtained’. Does this group contain a significant number of headteachers from ethic minorities? We just don’t know.
The good news is that all teachers and school leaders from the four minority groups have seen a 10%+ increase in their teacher numbers across all grades over the period between 2011/12 and 2023/24. This during a period where the school population has fluctuated, and by January 2025 was significantly smaller than it was a few years ago.
More classroom teachers will mean more headteachers if these individuals can be persuaded to stay in teaching. Sadly, there is a risk that won’t be the case. The lack of coordinated local governance of schooling across much of England makes the risk of departure greater than if local plans for retention across all groups of teachers were put in place. This is another governance issue the present system has created. Who cases about local policies for retaining teachers?
I am sorry for the mother whose son was stabbed to death in school by another pupil, that death, as any death anywhere, is a matter of shame on society.
However, I think that the general secretary of ASCL quoted in the BBC piece has it about right.
‘The Association of Schools and College Leaders says while it is relatively rare for pupils to bring knives into schools, it would like to see greater efforts across society to tackle the issue.
“More than a decade of cuts to community policing and youth outreach programmes has meant school leaders, too often, find themselves with little or no support,” says general secretary, Pepe Di’lasio.’
Cuts to youth services and too many images of knives in entertainment don’t help, as does a lack of teachers serving in high-risk schools long enough to build relationships with pupils.
It is interesting that the academy trust mentioned by the BBC as introducing metal detection arches is located in the West Midlands. The police in that area, according to the BBC, report much higher levels of knife crime incidents in education establishment than other police forces, so perhaps for now some form of detection is acceptable.
However, I would not want detection arches to become a permanent feature or school life. At some point society has to defuse such situations. Schools should not become like airports, after all rail and underground stations function without metal detectors, but not without incidents.
There needs to be a risk assessment, and the issue needs to be kept in proportion. In 2024, the BBC data showed an incidence of 21 knife offence in schools per 1,000,000 students. If there are 6 million students that’s 126 offences per year. I think that the expenditure on knife detecting arches could be better spent elsewhere, and such arches won’t protect students on school buses before they reach the school.
For those children below the age of criminal responsibility, any child with a knife is a matter for Children’s Services, and for parents to explain how their child could leave home with a knife.
Finally, I would ban knives and swords from shop window displays. Such display glorifies weapons, and have no place on our high streets.
For those that want to know more about young people and knife crime this presentation by the youth Justice board from August 2025 is a useful introduction. Knife Crime, Key Evidence and Insights, Aug 2025
According to the government, in the year ending March 2024, there were just over 3,200 knife or offensive weapon offences committed by children resulting in a caution or sentence, which is 6% fewer than the previous year but 20% greater than 10 years ago. This is the sixth consecutive year-on-year decrease.
In the latest year, the vast majority (99.7%) of knife or offensive weapon offences committed by children were possession offences and the remaining 0.1% were threatening with a knife or offensive weapon offences.
In the year ending March 2024, 61% of disposals given to children for a knife or offensive weapon offence were a community sentence. This proportion is broadly stable over the last 10 years.
The proportion of children sentenced to immediate custody was 7% in the last year, which is the same level it has been for the last three years. Youth Justice Statistics: 2023 to 2024 – GOV.UK
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.
The Defence Review published yesterday, and it was interesting to see that it has implications for education. Specifically, the Review includes some recommendations directly aimed at education and young people. The first of these is:
Work with the Department for Education to develop understanding of the Armed Forces among young people in schools.
I assume that will mean allowing recruiting teams into schools to offer career advice, and also, where an understanding of the role of the armed forces and home defence might fit into PSHE lessons.
More specifically, and with a cost attached to it, is the recommendation that:
Expand in-school and community-based Cadet Forces across the country by 30% by 2030, with an ambition to reach 250,000 in the longer term. There should be greater focus within the Cadets on developing STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) skills and exploring modern technology. Defence, wider Government, and partnerships with the private sector must provide appropriate leadership, support, and funding to deliver this expansion.
To reach this goal around 7% of the secondary school population need to be enrolled in cadet forces, or perhaps 10%, if you discount the youngest pupils in Years 7 and 8. If this happens then there is going to be a need for a whole lot of new staff in areas where the schools have been failing to meet recruitment targets for teaching staff for years.
What is the purpose behind this move. What will these young people be expected to do with the skills acquired after leaving school? Last year, at the start of the general election campaign there was a brief discussion about reintroducing conscription. As there is no mention of conscription in the review, might this be the alternative solution. Although the voluntary scheme is much cheaper and less intrusive than conscription, it begs the question of who will sign up for the new places?
The last sentence in the recommendation suggests a new body might need to be set up to deliver the aims, especially if all the groups mentioned are to be brought together. Would such a new body be led by the MoD, and how will the new community groups recruit the staff for evening and weekend sessions when these days volunteer organisations are regularly struggling to find youth workers? Will local authorities be asked to help play a role in developing this expansion of uniform bodies.
As might be expected, there is a big emphasis in the Review on both the uses of and the protection from drones – the new weapon of war. The war in Ukraine has probably played a role similar to that of the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s in demonstrating how the technology of war can change in one theatre, delivery of the destruction of civilian population centres and other targets, while remaining the same on the ground: opposing armies slogging it out on front lines that resemble the trench system of World War 1.
I was part of the first generation to avoid conscription, and benefitting from that reduction in defence spending being used for improvements in the education sector from the 1960s onwards. It is sobering to remember that in the late 1940s there were something like 1,000,000 British forces personnel in Germany waiting for a war that thankfully never came. But, most of them were conscripts.
I fear now that defence of the realm will consume a much larger part of national resources, and that education as a sector may suffer as a consequence.
John Howson 