Ethnic minority trainee teachers: still huge regional differences in trainee numbers

1n the autumn of 1997, Baroness Estelle Morris, at that time a junior minister in the DfE, in the new Labour government of Tony Blair, opened a conference about recruiting more ethnic minority students to become a teacher. The conference was organised by the then Teacher Training Agency. That conference was held in East London, and was followed by two more in Leeds and Birmingham.

Fast forward to the ITT census produced by the DfE today, and ask the question: how successful has the campaign to recruit certain ethnic groups into teaching been since that first conference nearly 30 years ago? Initial teacher training: trainee number census 2025 to 2026 – GOV.UK

Looking at the group that has found most difficultly in becoming a teacher over the years – Black African/Black Caribbean – there still seem to be big challenges looking at today’s data. Whether these are because students from this ethnic grouping aren’t attracted to parts of the country where there are few of their compatriots or whether there are other reasons cannot be determined just from the numbers.

However, over 500 courses have no candidates recorded from this group in the data published in Table 12 today. Just over 900 courses have between one and four candidates from the ethnic group. A further 83 courses have the number suppressed as being too low, as it might allow an individual to be identified.

A quick review of courses with the highest percentage (over 50% of each course code) shows that 24 are courses run by providers in London; just three are from outside London, and for three the name does not provide a clue to the location.

Looking at the courses with more than 100 candidates from the Black ethnic group: four are located in London – two each from UCL and Teach First – and the fifth is a national SCITT.  

As might be expected, the University of East London, and several other London post 1992 universities, feature in the list of providers with between 25% and 50% of course numbers from the Black group, each with several courses in this percentage range. Most other pre-1992 universities and other post-1992 universities and the SCITTs in London have many of their courses in the 15%-25% group of providers. Few, if any, London providers feature in the list with zero percentage from the black group.

While it is good that courses in London do seem to be attracting applications from the Black ethnic group, there are still many courses in large parts of the country where that seems not to be the case. Does this matter? Would a ‘token’ representative on a single course in an institution be anything more than a token. Should we encourage such students to be trailblazers r should we accept that outside of the conurbations and a few university towns, graduates from the black ethnic group are still relatively rare.

I went to school in the 1960s with one of the few Black pupils in the school. He went on to become a teacher when Black teachers were even thinner on the ground than now, even in London.

So, there has been some progress, but not enough.

Teachers still need more holidays

The DfE recently released the results of the latest study into teacher workload and attitudes to teaching as a career. Working lives of teachers and leaders – wave 4 summary report

There is some good news for the government in the report, not least on pay, where teachers seem slightly more content about pay than a few years ago. It makes the possibility of industrial action less likely than before the recent pay awards.

This improvement in attitude may also partly be down to the fact that hours worked, as reported in the survey, have been reducing. Primary teachers were working 1.8 hours less per week in the 2025 survey than in the 2022 survey, and secondary school teachers, 1.9 hours less. Leaders work longer hours than teachers, but have also seen a slight fall in recorded hours worked.

Phase2022202320242025
Primary Teachers53.253.952.551.4
Primary Leaders57.257.957.656.5
Secondary Teachers51.251.450.349.3
Secondary Leaders54.755.554.852.8

Source Table 3.2 Working Lives of Teachers and Leaders Working lives of teachers and leaders – wave 4 summary report

My blog about ‘how much holiday do teachers have?’ that appeared on 20th May 2022 has received more views than any other post on this blog; notching up over 6,000 views.

As a result, I thought that it would be interesting to see what the latest figures mean for teachers’ holidays. Assuming a normal week of 40 hours – yes on the high side, but stay with the calculations – this produces an average overtime of between 9.3 hours for a secondary school teacher and 17.3 for a secondary school leader.

phasenotionalactualDifference in 202538 weeksweeks hours/40
PT4051.411.443311
PL4056.516.562716
ST4049.39.33539
SL4057.317.365716

Now, multiply that overtime by 38 weeks, on the assumption that similar amount of time is spent working each week during the time pupils are in school (the use of 40 hours provides some leeway for lighter and heavier weeks. This provides a gross number of hours which when if divided by 40 produces unpaid overtime in weeks. The outcomes are

Primary Teachers 11 weeks

Secondary Teachers 9 weeks

Primary and secondary leaders 16 weeks.

Now, using the 38 weeks worked, and ignoring the 5 CPD days, that leaves 14 weeks for holidays and compensation for term-time working. On these calculations, school leaders receive no compensation, and thus no holiday under these calculations, while primary teachers have 3 weeks holiday and secondary teachers 5 weeks holiday.

Of course, pay may compensate for the additional workload, even if not paid as overtime. Personally, I doubt, except for the most well paid headteachers that the time teachers work is well fully compensated, if these numbers are correct.

The teachers’ contract is not radically different to the one I signed in 1971 with regard to holidays. My graduate colleagues outside of teaching have seen significant improvements in their holiday entitlements over the years since 1971 – many will not be working for two weeks over Christmas and the New Year, and if they are, they will receive time off in lieu.

Hopefully, as school rolls fall, the working week of teachers will also continue to reduce, especially with more sensible approaches to tasks such as marking and preparation. However, there is still a long way to go for teachers to feel that they genuinely have the same of holidays entitlement as most other graduates.

SEND: we know the issue – but we still won’t say how it will be solved

Buried in the OBR Review in Chapter 5 is the following CP 1439 – Office for Budget Responsibility – Economic and fiscal outlook – November 2025

Correction to Chapter 5, paragraph 5.19, second bullet Text currently reads: If it were fully funded within the Department for Education’s £69 billion RDEL core schools budget in 2028-29, this would imply a 1.7 per cent real fall in mainstream school spending per pupil rather than the 2.4 per cent increase planned by Government.

Text should read: If it were fully funded within the Department for Education’s £69 billion RDEL core schools budget in 2028-29, this would imply a 4.9 per cent real fall in mainstream school spending per pupil rather than the 0.5 per cent real increase planned by Government.

5.19 Special educational needs and disabilities: As set out in more detail in Box 5.1, the Government has announced that from 2028-29 the cost of SEND provision will be fully absorbed within the existing RDEL envelope. The Government has not set out any specific plans on how this pressure, which we estimate at £6 billion in 2028-29, would be accommodated within the existing RDEL envelope. If it were fully funded within the Department for Education’s £69 billion RDEL core schools budget in 2028-29, this would imply a 4.9 per cent real fall in mainstream school spending per pupil rather than the 0.5 per cent real increase planned by Government. The Government has stated that it will set out proposed reforms to SEND provision early in the new year.

So, another function disappears from local authorities, presumably to the DfE as SEND funding will be handled at a national level. Will it include management of transport as well as granting of EHCPs? Who knows, the OBR don’t, but warn that funding per pupil could fall by 4.9%. For many schools, this will be on top of any loss of income from falling rolls. Start planning now for such an outcome.

More to come when the White Paper finally emerges sometime in 2026

More men looking to teach

Today, the DfE published their first round of statistics about applications to train as a teacher on courses starting in the autumn of 2026. Generally, one has to be cautious about data from ‘applications’ and ‘offer’ statistics published in November, as this is very early in the application round.

However, with more than 20 years of data underpinning my remarks, I think it possible to say something.

Firstly, applications – and candidates may submit more than one – are up from 13,159 last November to 15,572 this year. Applications from men are up from 5,072 to 6,580, while those from women are up from 7,978 to 9,031. That equates to 1,052 more women applying, or an increase of 13%, but 1,508 more men; an increase of 30%. I cannot recall a time when the rate of increase in applications from men last outpaced those from women.

Part of this increase is probably down to the large increases in applications for mathematics, up from 1,657 last year to 1,929 this year. In computing, the applications are up from 509 to 841, and in physics from 1,694 to a staggering 3,277. All these are subjects that tend to attract more male than female candidates.

Aword of warning, before one becomes too carried away; applications from the Rest of the World are up from 3,540 last November to 5,120 this November. Might this account for part of the increase in male applicant in these subjects? Sadly, that cannot be determined from the published data.

Final year undergraduates are not yet swarming into teaching. No obvious concerns about loss of graduate jobs to AI from the 21 and under age group, where applications are actually down by 34 from 1,276 to 1,242. Presumably, studies still take precedence over job hunting.

However, there is a big increase in the 22-24 age group applying for teaching: up from 3,349 to 3,658 with nearly 200 of this increase from 22 year olds. Maybe summer 2025 graduates that are still job hunting are turning to teaching? There is little difference in interest in teaching from those over 45 years old. However, there has been a big jump (210) in interest from the 40-44 age group.

SCITTs is the only route to have seen fewer applications than in November 2025. This may reflect the fact that the SCITT route maty be less well-known to overseas applicants. Both teacher degree apprenticeships and PG teaching apprenticeships have seen significant increases in applications. It would be interesting to see this table by phase and subject.

On ‘offers’, it much depends upon how providers handle early applications. However, there is a trend with mathematics, computing, chemistry and physics all recording the highest ‘offer’ levels since 2013/14, whereas music has the lowest offer level since 2020/21. Most other subjects are close to where they would be expected to be, although biology, PE and geography are below where they might expect to be. PE probably over-recruited to current courses, and I would expect more caution there this year.

So, overall, a good start that should presage a good recruitment round unless something unforeseen happens.

No High Needs Block data in NFF announcement

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.

So, no change, apart from the lack of a definition of a ‘compatible school’. This footnote has now been relocated to the Technical Manual, and appears as footnote 9 on page 19 of the manual. Schools block national funding formula 2026 to 2027: technical note

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?  

Skills Issue: right issue, wrong solution?

A study also backed by former Tory education secretary Gillian Keegan and Liberal Democrat education spokesman Lord Storey has called for an expansion of University Technical Colleges (UTCs), which are schools where local employers often help deliver lessons to ensure children are trained for available jobs.

They supported a study by Policy Exchange, the think tank, which also called for University Technical College departments to be added to existing secondary schools. The report from Policy Exchange is called From School to the Skilled Workforce. Policy Exchange – From School To The Skilled Workforce

In a joint foreword to the report, the three politicians said: “Businesses consistently report that a lack of access to skilled labour is impeding their growth, with the shortages particularly acute in sectors including construction, technology and healthcare.

Let employers help run schools to end youth unemployment crisis, says David Blunkett

Now I agree with the premiss behind this report: a need for many more technicians to support our industrial and commercial base to the economy. However, I am dubious about the recommended way forward.

Kenneth Baker created City Technology Colleges when he was Secretary of State in the 1980s, and supported the creation of the present University Technology Colleges. These colleges have had a chequered history, not least because they were only open to pupils from Year 10 onwards. All too often that allowed existing schools to move pupils sideways, and schools rarely suggest that pupils doing well change school at the end of Key State 3.

This new report overcomes that difficulty by suggesting ‘sleeve schools’ within existing schools -effectively a technology pathway.  Now, I really don’t believe that a conservative leaning think tank really wants to create 4,000 new headteacher posts to run these sleeve schools – think of the cost and bureaucracy involved – not to mention the need to sack teachers to employ those with the right skills to teach.

Fortunately, the report has a solution to both of these issues. A pilot of 10 sleeve schools, and give QTS to those in senior positions with relevant industrial experience. Not a surprising idea when you notice that the author spent two years in the classroom on the Teach First programme. He should know that teaching is not just about subject knowledge alone.

My advice is readers is to read to page 10 of the report in order to understand the issue that after all isn’t new. After all, as far back as the 1960s, The Dainton Report Dainton Report – Wikipedia worried about encouraging science and engineering as a career for those interested in going to university and both the Crowther and Newsom Reports were concerned about the futures of the upper age groups in education.

My view is that the, much neglected, Further Education sector, removed from local authorities and many links to local labour market needs in the 1990s, should be a more effective route to solving the skills gap. There would also need to be better career advice in schools that encouraged consideration of the value of training for these areas of skill shortages. This is especially the case as the Policy Exchange report has little to say about whether the expansion of the UTC concept should be for pupils across the whole ability range or just not likely to be on pathways leading to higher education.

Slow progress on ethnic minority headteacher numbers

Earlier today someone viewed my post from 2021 ‘We need more black headteachers in our schools’ | John Howson so I thought that I would review the data from last November’s Workforce Census to see how the position has changed since then.

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?

The governance of our schools – does pay matter?

Later this month Directors of Children’s Services will meet alongside their Directors of Adult Social Services colleagues for their annual conference. I am sure that one of the topics in the bar, if not in the conference hall, will be the pay grades for public servants.

In August this year, I once again started collecting data about headteacher vacancies, including starting salaries. This has been a research interest of mine since the early 1980s, and I still have my reports for the majority of years between 1984 and 2023, with the exception of the years between 2011-2014.

Unlike the pay of most teachers, and school leaders below the grade of headteacher, salaries of headteachers are less well controlled, and more subject to market forces. Interestingly, the first report of an advert for a headteacher on a salary of more than £100,000 was as far back as 1998. This was for the headship of a secondary school in an inner London borough.  

Fast forward to the autumn of 2025 and there have been four secondary schools with advertised starting salaries of £113,000. The most a headteacher of the largest schools can earn according to the pay scales is £158,000, if the school is located in the inner London Pay area.

Why does the pay of headteachers matter to directors of children’s services and their staff? At present, they still provide the governance backbone to much of the system-wide decision-making about local schooling. To do so effectively needs a pipeline of staff willing to take on the most senior roles supporting education.

These days, there are few educationalists in the top posts as directors as these are mostly held by those with a social work background. However, most authorities still have a senior post for an officer responsible for everything from SEND to school transport, pupil place planning and school building, whether opening new ones, closing existing ones because of falling roles or just maintaining the fabric of those open schools.  All this has to be achieved in cooperation with academy trusts, dioceses and the many others that now run schools across England.

When I came across a one form entry primary school, with just over 200 pupils in roll, offering a starting salary of £92,447, I wondered what the director earned in the same authority? Fortunately, senior officer salaries in local government are open to scrutiny, so I know that the director has a salary of less than £170,000, after a number of years of service. However, the most senior education officer earns less than £120,000, and little more than the advert for a secondary school headteacher quoted above.

The issue is about comparability. Chief officers of academy trusts earn more than their headteachers in most cases, sometimes substantially more. Is running a MAT much more challenging than being a senior officer in a local authority with responsibility for both community schools and authority wide strategy plus probably a couple of other roles as well? Are local government officers underpaid? I think you know my feeling on that issue, and I write as former cabinet member for children’s services.

Does it matter? I believe that it does, because it is another symptom of a refusal to understand the importance of a governance system for schooling that will help develop our schooling system for the needs of children that entered school at three this September, and won’t retire from work until the 2080s under present arrangements.

Governance matters, and for good governance you need good staff. Are current differentials between the salaries for headteachers, those running MATs, and our local government officers fair and equitable. I think not.

What is the role of the State in schooling?

This is an interesting philosophical question for a Sunday morning. It arises out of my post yesterday questioning a decision of the Labour government to allow a state school to open sites overseas, presumably for profit. Has Labour gone mad? | John Howson

The genesis of that blog  post was a tes magazine piece about a grammar school in London teaming up with a global brand to open sites in Dubai and Delhi Queen Elizabeth’s School to open fee-paying school in Dubai | Tes

What is the role of the state in schooling in the second quarter of the 21st century? When the 1870 Education Act was passed, as one of the Gladstone government’s first Bills before the new parliament, it was to ensure all children received at least some education. There was a feeling that a lack of literacy was resulting in British’s industry losing its advantage in the industrial revolution to countries with better educated populations.

After 1870, the State increasingly became the default position for schooling. Parents didn’t have to use it, but if they didn’t choose an alternative, basically the private sector or home schooling, then attending the local school from five to early teens was required of children. State paternalism or practical politics to allow the economy to continue to be successful?

155 years later, and we have the State, now run by a Labour government, sanctioning a state-funded school partnering with a global company to create school sites overseas selling its brand of education.

Why not allow this? After all, as someone pointed out on LinkedIn, the State too often rescues loss-making industries, why then shouldn’t it make money out of education?

Of course, the State already helps British Industry and commerce make money from exporting aspects of our successful education enterprise, from textbooks to teachers and private schools with sites overseas, as well as private schools bring in overseas students and their fees the government offers help and advice.

So, should State capitalism in this country support state schools opening branches overseas, and those schools making a profit on that work, to be ploughed back into their school in England, thus potentially earning it more cash than the State provides?

Firstly, profit is not a given. Secondly, how will the countries where such schools are located react. Happy not to worry about attracting expatriate workers because there will be high quality education for their children. And, also happy for its own citizens to attend such schools, with a different curriculum to what State schools in that country might teach?

The issue of state schools topping up their funding, whether from parents, donors or now profits, has worried me ever since I taught in Tottenham in the 1970s. School fetes, a feature of those days, run by primary schools in Highgate made thousands of pounds, those run by schools in Tottenham couldn’t match such income. Was this acceptable? At that time, local authorities ran schools and could compensate for this discrepancy. Now, the National Funding Formula make such compensation more challenging, except through the Pupil Premium.

The entrepreneur in me applauds the school making money overseas; the politician takes the opposite view. In this case, I think the politician wins. We need to debate afresh the role of the State in schooling in England, and both its purpose and its limits.

Excellent Christmas Present

Excellent Christmas present for anyone interested in education or politics. £9 e-book on amazon or £12 plus £2.50 p&p for signed copy direct from dataforeducation@johnohowson

Sample content at: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0FM84M3SX/ref=sr_1_2?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Ja2jQ8JWKzm1XbVFd1O0GL9pWmt0RP-y9kKowNMdNALI4aiNoApcLhXrph2KReV129XhXij1o0nFR_3lhNj5hFUezqp0NTFjyZgcOZmDVq1dNXvgGB2-8fUUTGwkfkCv-RT9NauN-j0zw3digD6_ctOlJBV9RWNq-qL5WJ9XsWjNrLJBQMYxn8XWYP11bv1Ci0guE7srVSVfSRE2xjpShoU85Q2BXBQ_9mzFqwNRIMo.TArvGiYetMB8AVett_7nOdAchUvw90IzCA63PTtzpvg&dib_tag=se&qid=1755079949&refinements=p_27%3AJOHN+HOWSON&s=digital-text&sr=1-2&text=JOHN+HOWSON&asin=B0FM84M3SX&revisionId=e834512b&format=3&depth=1