Teacher shortages are commonplace across the globe

OECD has today published the 2026 edition of ‘Education Indicators At a glance’. Education at a Glance 2026 | OECD The section on teacher shortages has already received several comments on LinkedIn and elsewhere. I though I might look in some detail about the United Kingdom section in the ’country report’ about teacher shortages.

On the face of it, the UK fares well compared with other countries. Apparently, only 2.9% of teachers in state schools are not fully qualified. I wonder what the percentage would be for Further Education?

Teacher shortages

  • Shortages of skilled workers have affected many sectors across the OECD in recent years, and the teaching profession is no exception. Teacher shortages manifest in different ways across education systems: in some countries, a lack of fully qualified teachers is reflected in a higher share of non-fully qualified staff, while in others a significant number of teaching positions remain unfilled.
  • Non-fully qualified teachers refer to teachers who do not yet meet all the requirements to be recognised as fully qualified teachers under national regulations. In most countries, they either possess the required academic qualifications but lack mandatory certification or teacher training, have completed the required teacher training but do not hold the required academic qualifications, or lack both. In England, 2.9% of all primary and secondary teachers in public institutions were not fully qualified in 2024/25, below the OECD average of 9.1% (Figure 1).
  • Countries use two main approaches to measuring teacher shortages. The first approach estimates shortages before or at the start of the school year based on projected recruitment needs. The second approach measures shortages by counting the number of positions that remain vacant at the start of the school year or shortly after it begins. England uses the second approach, and 0.6% of all teaching positions in public secondary education were unfilled at or shortly before the start of the 2024/25 school year (Table 2). Education at a Glance 2026: United Kingdom

However, it is important to delve into what’ ‘Qualified’ actually means.

In England, possession of QTS allows teachers, not, interestingly, a reserved occupation term, to teach anything to anyone at any level. For the past 25 years, I have been asking for QTS to be linked to phase and subject studied in ITT. However, apart from in the Liberal Democrat Manifesto in 20025, there has been no political appetite to limit QTS in any way. I still think that is a mistake. The over-supply of PE and history teachers has helped keep school fully staffed during the recruitment crisis that started way back in 2013, but may now be coming to an end.

It is also worth pointing out that schools can be fully staffed in England by adjusting the curriculum, and dropping subjects they cannot staff. The other alternative, as OECD noted, is using less well-qualified staff. The figures on combined versus separate science at Key Stage 4 between different types of school are stark. The former can be staffed with teachers with less subject knowledge than the latter. If you don’t pass the 11+, you probably won’t study Physics as a subject by KS4 | John Howson

I was surprised that OECD appears to have accepted the DfE data at face value and not to have a definition that would deal with the fact that QTS is so broad as to be meaningless at both primary and secondary school levels.

Mixed results across the ITT targets this September

Earlier this year, (in April) the DfE slashed the targets for new trainee teachers, citing falling rolls. In some case, this won’t have made a difference because either the new target was still unattainable or those in ITT had already exceeded the new target, and presumably couldn’t or wouldn’t withdraw offers already made.

So, what does the landscape look like this September, now that the DfE has released the data that will be close to the final outcomes for courses, at least those recruiting through the DfE portal. The Teach First, and other such programmes must be added to the data. However, before the ITT census there will undoubtedly be some dropouts or no-shows to courses. As a result, the September numbers accepted should provide a good idea of the basis for calculating the number of new teachers emerging onto the state school labour market for September 2027. (Take of 6% for in-course-wastage, and then 15-20% of the remainder for those not wanting to teaching state schools – these are conservative percentages). This means there may well be shortages in some subjects, especially the arts that Labour seemed to want to espouse, as the table shows.

The final percentages for mathematics and physics may well depend upon how many overseas students can obtain a visa, firstly to study and then to work in England?

It really is time to open up what the DfE means by ‘others’, and include some more actual subjects in the list. Computing may be the first subject to be benefitting from concern over the loss of jobs to AI.

I very much doubt  whether the total for music, biology, religious education, design and technology, geography and English will be enough to meet the needs of schools in 2027. Rolls across the country just are not falling that fast, whatever is happening in London.

I am not sure what the DfE has calculated for the effects oof VAT on the private school sector, but if numbers fell in that sector, the sector would need to recruit fewer teachers. This would only have an impact if it was a reduction in overseas student numbers, as, presumably, home students would transfer into the state system, requiring more teachers, even at the worse pupil-teacher ratio of the state sector.

Where are acceptances down on last year?

Applications submitted were 62,633 this year, compared with 55,637 last year. However, accepted numbers were down from 26,714 to 24,850 meaning an increase of more than 4,000                                           applicants rejected.

The number of acceptances fell across all age groups, larger falls were in the age-groups normally associated with career switchers, and there were relatively small falls for new graduates. This is encouraging news for the long-term health of the profession, as younger trainees that stay the course should provide for the cadre of future leaders.

Most of the fall in acceptances were of females: down from 17,918 to 16,189, with males just declining from 8,516 to 8,382. This may reflect the greater number of females that apply for primary sector courses.

More worrying is the fact that while acceptances from ‘rest of the world’ applicants remained steady at 1,440 this year compared with 1,428 last year, most UK regions witnessed a decline in acceptances.  There were 9,661 acceptances for primary phase courses compared with 9,887 last year, while secondary phase acceptances declined from 16,829 to 15,190.

Apprenticeships bucked the trend, witnessing more acceptances (1,453 against 1,310 for PG and 261 against 198 for degree apprenticeships). Salaried route acceptances slumped from 618 to just 304, presumably as a result of the apprenticeship route, which may be cheaper for schools.

Finally, all training provider regions witnessed a decline in acceptances, with fewer than 1,000 trainees across the North East region being accepted ( 911 compared with 1,078 last year).

If I have time, I will compare the 2026 September acceptances with   census to measure whether there is any significant amount of change between the two datasets.

Is the Teachers’ Pay Award fully funded or not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Music Teachers: demand and supply

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

Recent posts include:

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

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

Reviving Music Teacher Bursaries: A Necessity | John Howson

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Demand for teachers of music: January to August 2026

Is now available from dataforeducation@gmail.com

Part of the conclusion to the report states that;

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

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

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

Wearable glasses: a need for a new school rule?

This post on LinkedIn caught my eye recently. It adds yet another challenge to schools trying to keep pupils and staff safe in an ever-changing world, where technology is continually throwing up new challenges.

A small request as the new academic year begins. As Meta glasses and other wearable technologies become more common, ‘covert’ recording in classrooms is going to become increasingly easy. I get that it happens, maybe it shouldn’t but it does.

Personally, I really don’t mind being recorded; if a student genuinely thinks having a recording of part of a session will help them revisit an explanation or support their learning, I’m pretty relaxed about it. ,Indeed, if the reason was genuine, I’d probably be quite happy that there’s another way for you to digest the information I’m trying to deliver.

But please ask first.

Ater reading this post, and considering the debate around mobile phones in schools, I wonder if I can see a new school rule being developed, perhaps along the following lines:

Any pupils, staff and visitors wanting to wear glasses on school premises must register a photograph of those glasses with the school office, and notify the school office of any change.

Pupils and visitors should be aware that cameras at entry points and classroom doors check anyone entering the school wearing glasses to ensure that they are of the registered design.

The rule is to protect everyone (pupils and staff) from the use of unregistered recordings within the school premises. It is just an extension of the current photo pass rules, but adapted to cope with new technology.

If we are going to be wiped out as a species by AI, sometime before my 90th birthday, then is this issue worth worrying about. I don’t know, but I do know keeping vulnerable young people safe is an essential role for the State, and its agents, as well as private sector organisations that offer services to young people and vulnerable adults.

I would be interested to hear what others think? Over-reaction, as I think knife arches are in schools, or a sensible approach to a possible problem? What degree of risk are we willing to accept? I don’t want knife arches in schools | John Howson

It was the mass killing of pupils 30 years ago in Dunblane  that started the drive to ensure the safety of those in schools. So far, compared with what is happening around the world, especially in countries where guns are commonplace, England has avoided large scale attacks, but, as I know from personal experience, one attack is one too many.

Teacher retention versus recruitment: not just a matter of economics

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

The latest EPI report makes three recommendations:

Fund a specialist-equivalent retraining programme

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

Add retraining alongside bursary policy, not in place of it

Microsoft Word – EPI_RetrainRecruit_September2026 page 53.

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

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

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

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

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

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

PISA 2025: Teachers still matter

The recent release of the 2025 international PISA study results has already received a lot of comment. PISA publications | OECD. This section of the OECD’s PISA Study report caught my eye, as you might imagine if would do, if you are a regular reader of this blog.

How is school life in the United Kingdom? PISA 2025 Results (Volume I): United Kingdom

Perceived shortages of human and material resources

  • In 2025, 48% of students in the United Kingdom were in schools whose principals reported that instruction was hindered, at least to some extent, by a perceived lack of teaching staff (OECD average: 39%); the corresponding share for a perceived lack of assisting staff was 39% (OECD average: 39%). The prevalence of perceived teaching staff shortages in the United Kingdom did not change significantly compared to 2022. However, principals’ concerns about inadequate or poorly qualified teaching staff increased from 19% in 2022 to 31% in 2025 (OECD average: 25% in both years).
  • PISA 2025 data reveal that perceived shortages of material resources remain a concern in most countries and economies. Some 24% of students in the United Kingdom attended schools whose principals reported that a lack of educational material (e.g. textbooks, IT equipment, library or laboratory material) hindered instruction, at least to some extent, and 34% were in schools where a lack of physical infrastructure (e.g. buildings, grounds, heating/cooling systems, lighting and acoustic systems) was perceived to hinder instruction. In 2022, the corresponding shares were 13% and 24%, respectively. PISA 2025 Results (Volume I): United Kingdom

So, the United Kingdom as a whole had a percentage of principals reporting that ‘instruction was hindered, at least to some extent, by a perceived lack of teaching staff (OECD average: 39%)’. I wonder what the figure might have been for just England? The difference between the United Kingdom and the OECD average was 9%. Interestingly, there was no difference for what OECD called ‘assisting staff’.

The issue became even worse when principals were asked about ‘inadequate or poorly trained staff’.  Here the concerns rose from 29% in the 2022 survey, to 31% in 2025. This compared to an OECD average of 25% in both surveys.

Does the fact that the United Kingdom has a free market for teachers, with  most vacancies advertised, and any teacher able to apply for any post  make any difference to the scores? Assuming the PISA survey has a representative sample of schools across the United Kingdom, then the presence of a significant number of private schools in England, able to recruit qualified teachers more easily that state funded schools may skew the distribution of scare resources, such as physics teachers.

By chance the Education Policy Institute has just produced a report on recruitment versus retention of teachers. Recruit or Retain. Microsoft Word – EPI_RetrainRecruit_September2026

I will discuss that report in another post.

I think the obvious outcome of the PISA findings, is that the  effect of a long period of teacher shortages. In the case of England,  from between 2014 and 2025 in some subjects, is now being recognised in international surveys, such as PISA.

Hopefully, falling rolls, a changing labour market for graduates and better pay for teachers might mean the position improves in terms of teaching by specialist teachers by the next PISA study. However, it might take longer in an open labour market to close the gap between different types of schools and schools serving different socio-economic areas.

ITT crisis not yet over

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are teachers better paid?

Way back in 2014 I wrote a post that attracted a significant number of views Be a teacher: earn £12-15 per hour? | John Howson (More than 1,500 in the month it appeared, and many more since).

As August is often a slack time for new data, I thought it would be interesting to see how teachers have fared financially since I originally wrote that post in 2014.

Interestingly, the government view of teachers no doubt helps to define the profession in the public mind, and that of some journalists and commentators, as one that doesn’t need to work very hard to earn a living. Hence the following statement for ‘Employee Earnings in the UK: 2025’

  1. Full-time is defined as employees working more than 30 paid hours per week (or 25 or more for the teaching professions). Employee earnings in the UK – Office for National Statistics

I don’t find that helpful, even though it is the minimum and it flies in the face of the DfE’s own diary research. See Working lives of teachers and leaders wave 4: qualitative report – GOV.UK and Working lives of teachers and leaders wave 4 research report page 24 that contains the following:

Hours worked

Teachers and leaders both reported working fewer hours on average in their most recent full week of work in 2025 compared with all previous years (Figure 3.1).

Average weekly working hours were as follows:

• leaders: 55.5 hours, down from 56.6 in 2024, 57.4 in 2023 and 56.8 in 2022

• teachers: 46.9 hours, down from 48.1 in 2024, 49.4 in 2023 and 48.7 in 2022

Among leaders, this pattern was driven by those working full time in particular (56.5 hours vs. 57.6 in 2024, 58.2 in 2023 and 57.5 in 2022), while for teachers, average hours were lower among both those working full time and those working part time.

The good news is teachers, and school leaders, are working fewer hours; the bad news is that they are still working nearly a 10-hour day during term-time. Why should the government still set the starting benchmark for a full-time teacher at 25 hours?

Anyway, assuming teachers work for 195 days a year (190 with pupils and 5 other statutory working days) and ten hours a day, to include the weekends, and that make 50 hours a week, close enough to the 46.9 hours of the diary study.

In September 2026, a teacher at the bottom of the scale, on M,1 will be paid £34,069 if working outside the London pay zone. This equates to £17.60p per hour for the 1950 hours.  Now assume that the average teacher does some ‘work’ in the remaining 13 weeks. School trips, CPD, preparation for next year, turning up at school on two exam results days, reading the tes or schoolsweek each week in order to keep informed, all adds up to work. Assuming seven weeks of work at an average of two hours per day, add an extra 70 hours to the total, bringing it to 2060 hours, and a rate of £16.60 per hour. That leaves six week for holidays, similar to most other public servants if you include public holidays.

Now the minimum hourly wage in England for an adult has been £12.71p since the 1st April 2026. So, a new teacher, at the bottom of the scale starts at around £4 per hour above the minimum wage. I assume the Low Pay Commission that recommends the minimum wage likely doesn’t take into account repayment of student debt when calculating the rate for the Minimum Wage. Teachers will, in many cases have accrued four years of student debt thy need to service straightaway at the starting salary of £34,069p. For those on Plan 5, this could reduce their income by around 40-50p per hour, reducing the hourly rate to just over £16.00p.

Is it time to review the Teachers’ Pay and Conditions to make much clearer what teachers being paid to do, and what they should either expect additional payments for undertaking the work, or genuine time off in lieu. No longer can teaching operate some unofficial form of ‘employer-driven flexitime’ that is little changed from when I joined the profession as a teacher in 1971.

Finally, anyone being pay on the Unqualified Teacher rate at the bottom of the scale, might be receiving a salary much closer to the Minimum Way. If they have an annual contract that means they need to work similar hours to their qualified colleagues, then they might even be being paid below the Minimum Wage: perish the thought.

So, enjoy August and ask yourself, are you being paid for the time you are spending on school work and furthering your career? How much might you charge per hour for tutoring?

Fewer ethnic minority graduates achieved QTS

The absolute number of postgraduate trainee teachers from a non-white background is slowly creeping up.  Release home – Initial teacher training performance profiles – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK

The latest data, plus the data for the previous year are shown in the table.

However, the percentage of non-White trainees dropped from 75% of the total in 2023/24, to 72% of the 2024/25 trainee total.

The percentages teaching in state schools within 16 months of obtaining QTS dropped for all groups, but the decrease was largest, in percentage terms, for the Black/African/Caribbean Group, down from 74% to 67%. This is a real disappointment, and merits further investigation as to where the decline has occurred? This is a group of graduates that have regularly found obtaining a place on a teaching course more challenging than for graduates from other ethnic groups, and especially the ‘White’ majority grouping.

Despite the much larger number of White trainees, they achieved a higher percentage teaching in state schools than for any ethnic group, once again, in the latest data.

Numbers not obtaining qualified teacher Statues (QTS) also increased for all groups. Was this due to increased numbers dropping out of their course or an increase in trainees being failed at the end of the course?

More than thirty years ago, I highlighted the issues faced by graduates from minority ethnic groups desirous of entering teaching, and I have written several blogs on the topic, including  Ethnic minority trainee teachers: still huge regional differences in trainee numbers | John Howson

The ethnicity of the teaching profession is an area the new Secretary of State might want to ask officials to investigate. The diversity of our student population should be matched by a similar diversity in the teaching workforce, as I am sure it is among the non-teaching staff in our schools.

At the same time, it would be worth asking whether it is harder for men from ethnic minorities than for women from these groups to enter teaching?

As an aside, it would be helpful if ethnicity was added to gender data in the DfE’s monthly statistics on applications to train as a teacher by graduates.