Tag Archives: religious education

AI and schools: progress since 2018

Posted on by
Reply

Sometimes a visitor to this blog can uncover one of the 1,750 posts that I have completely forgotten about. One such as a post about Artificial Intelligence (AI) that I wrote eight years ago after a Report from a House of Lords Committee AI and education – The view of the House of Lords Committee | John Howson

The DfE at that time were talking about creating some 8,000 new teachers of computing. Isn’t it  interesting how often politicians offer up the promise of large number of new teachers with no funding to allow schools to employ them, even if they could be recruited (think of the present government’s 6,500 promise).

In November 2018, according to the DfE’s Workforce Census, School workforce in England: November 2018 – GOV.UK there were 3,954 teachers of computing working in state secondary schools. Together they taught some 31,190 hours, mostly at Key Stage 3 (3,954) with only 964 hours at Key Stage 5, but 2,289 at Key Stage 4.

Fast forward to the 2025 Workforce Census, and the number of those teaching computing had increased to 7,784. Together they delivered some 64,923 hours of learning. An impressive increase, even against the increase in the number of pupils over the same period.

However, using the DfE’s methodology of counting teachers and subjects, the overall hours taught has changed little between 2018 and 2025, from 3,550,691 in 2018 to 3,553,755 in 2025. Overall teacher numbers teaching across all subjects also remained remarkably statics at 219,269 in 2018 and 219,296 in 2025.

Against these numbers, the increase in teachers of computing, or computer science as it is now termed, is noteworthy, at an increase 3,730, doubling the number of teachers teaching the subject. However, it is still 50% below the 2018 number of 8,000 additional teachers put forward by the DfE.

In my original 2018 post, I also wondered about the moral and ethical issues surrounding AI. I wrote the following:

‘The Committee recognised that the 2014 change to the curriculum on IT in schools across England needed time to take effect. However, the removal of any consideration of moral and ethical issues to do with social media and digital technology from the curriculum was regretted by some witnesses; no doubt more so over recent weeks as the various concerns over social media and the handling of personal data have emerged. Personally, I think the downgrading of Religious Education at examination level, where there was a real opportunity to discuss issues of ethic, morality and philosophy, by excluding the subject from the EBacc was a mistake.’

The hours taught for religious education have increased since then; rising from 117,408 in 2018 to 117,772 in 2025.  The percentage of teachers with a relevant post ‘A’ qualification has also increased from 64% to 81.5% for computer science – as it is now termed – and from 54.1% to 72% for religious education.

However, it is worth noting that at Key Stage 3, where pupils are introduced to subjects, the percentage of qualified teachers in 2025 was still only 76.1% for computer science and even lower at 65.9% for religious education.

It seems the foundations of both subjects in secondary schools are still being taught by those least likely to have a qualification in the subject. Whether or not they are also trained teachers isn’t possible to determine form the simple Teacher Workforce publications.

One wonders what the DfE’s policy for both subjects is in the Curriculum Review. Both are key subjects for our modern age, and I would like to thank the reader that reminded me of my 2018 post, and thus, prompted this one.

The ITT Census versus September acceptances

Posted on by
Reply

In my previous post, I said at the end of the post that  I would look at what any differences between the August ITT acceptance data issued by the DfE earlier today, and the ITT census to be issued in December 2026 might be, by looking at the difference between those accepted in September 2025 and the ITT Census of December 2025.

In reality, this task has proved something more  of a challenge that I had expected. This is mostly because of the late announcement of the targets for September 2026. These were not announced until April 2026, by which time many subjects had already made offers in excess of the new, and lower, targets. The fact that the targets for 2026 were in many subjects drastically reduced has made the analysis almost impossible.

Because of the reduction in the targets, it is possible that the outcome of the 2026 ITT Census could be the best year in terms of hitting targets since 2012, especially once Teach First and any other non-DfE portal recruitment is factored into the census.

However, there are a few subjects that rely almost entirely upon the DfE portal for recruitment that we now know are very unlikely to meet even the revised target for September 2026.

These are: Business Studies; Classics, Drama; Religious Education and the catch-all ‘Other’ that includes media and communication studies, social studies, citizenship and psychology.

Although how the ‘other’ subjects grouping reaches a target of 2,035 places remains a bit of a mystery. As I have advocated elsewhere, it is now time to breakdown the ’other category’ into its component subject targets to allow for meaningful discussions about teacher supply. With around one in eight places in the ‘other’ category and the category recruiting very poorly it is time for a more meaningful discussion about the classifications used by the DfE for its IIT targets.

A reminder of how the targets have changed this year when compared to the previous year

2025/262026/27
Total26,92020,800
PrimaryTotal7,650 5,520
SecondaryTotal19,270 15,280
Art and Design680605
Biology985675
Business Studies9001,200
Chemistry730690
Classics6075
Computing895565
Design and Technology965620
Drama620370
English1,9501,980
Geography935685
History790520
Mathematics2,3002,000
Modern Foreign Languages1,4601,085
Music565260
Others2,5202,035
Physical Education725655
Physics1,410810
Religious Education780450

 Some years ago, the total was nearer 40,000 trainees, so this has been a dramatic reduction.

When were secondary trainee targets last as low as 15,280? Not for some time. I will do  a search and see if I can find out the last time the targets were this low for both primary and secondary trainees. As these targets now include almost all routes, it will be interesting to see whether when they were last this low were there no ‘off target’ numbers such as the former employment-based routes?  

Mixed results across the ITT targets this September

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Are teachers paid a fair wage for being a graduate?

Posted on by
1

Last week, the DfE published the latest report from the School Teachers Review body (STRB) School Teachers’ Review Body – THIRTY-SIXTH REPORT – 2026 This is the 36th Report from this body. Its recommendations on pay were accepted by the Secretary of State.

While the headline increases in pay, in percentage terms, seem generous, in reality they are part of a catching up exercise of a similar type to that which caused the hard-fought battle with resident doctors in the NHS.

Here’s what the STRB said about teachers’ pay over the past decade and a half:

• The real-terms value of median teacher earnings has fallen since the early 2010s. The fall in real teacher pay has been greater than that for other professional occupations.

• When comparing teachers’ pay to that of other professional occupations by age and region using data from the SWC and the ONS, teachers fell below the comparators in all groups. The gaps between median teacher pay and that of other professionals was greatest in London.

• Based on proprietary benchmarking data, starting pay for teachers is between the lowest quartile and median for roles of comparable size and scope.

These three comments seem to justify the pay rise, and it is not a generous settlement in a vibrant labour market for graduates. If that market cools between now and 2027, possibly because of the effects of AI on entry level jobs, it will be interesting to see what the next STRB pay report suggests.

The STRB summed up the situation in the most recent period as follows:

In 2024-25, for the Rest of England and London, teachers’ median earnings were below those of the comparator groups for all age bands. The gaps between teachers’ earnings and those of the comparator group were greatest in London.

Across most age categories, the relative earnings of teachers deteriorated from 2014-15 to 2019-20, both in the Rest of England and London. After a slight improvement in 2020-21 during the COVID-19 pandemic, this downward trend for relative earnings continued across all age categories to 2023-24. Over the latest period, between 2023-24 and 2024-25, the relative earnings of teachers have slightly improved, although their median earnings remain below other professional occupation counterparts.

Overall, teachers aged 21 to 30 compared least favourably against the other professional occupations, both in the Rest of England and in London. Those in the oldest age group (over 60) compared most favourably, although are still behind relative earnings of those in other professional occupations. Page 70

In summery the STRB concluded that;

Our analysis of real-terms pay changes over time suggests that the competitiveness of teachers’ earnings compared to the whole economy, wider public sector and to professional occupations, was lower in 2024/25 compared to 2010/11. Figure B.10 shows how the real-terms value of teachers’ median earnings fell throughout the early 2010s. The chart shows there was some improvement for teachers between 2018/19 and 2020/21, prior to the pay pause in 2021/22, and a period of decline to 2023/24. There was some improvement in 2024/25, however we estimate that teachers’ median gross earnings in 2024/25 were 13.9% below their level in 2010/11 in real terms. Median gross earnings for the whole economy were 0.6% below their 2010/11 level, whilst median gross earnings for professional occupations were 9.2% below their 2010/11 level, in real terms. Page 71

One issue potentially facing the STRB could be the problem of a single pay scale for all teachers when the labour markets for primary and secondary school teachers are operating in very different ways. However, it would be a brave government that tackled this issue. Most likely, a move on allowances, and how they are offered, could be the obvious way to tackle over-supply in the primary school labour market, and areas of shortage in the secondary school teacher labour market.

The STRB had something to say about the axing of bursaries from some ITT subjects.

111. The number of bursaries available for 2026/27 has been reduced across a range of subjects, with others seeing a reduction in the bursary value. The bursary values for Biology and Geography are both down by 21,000, while Modern Foreign Languages and Design Technology are down by 6,000. Art, Music and Religious Education are down by 10,000 to zero, with English down by 5,000 to zero. We also note that for Business Studies, Music, Religious Education, Modern Foreign Languages and Design Technology, the reduction in bursary value coincides with the failure to reach target entrant numbers in 2025/26. P101 My emphasis

There is also an interesting table (B21) that provides evidence to support my posts over the past year querying why music and also Religious Education lost their bursaries. Pages 100 to 102, and especially table B21, where music and Religious Education were placed in the top three subjects for the lowest percentages of ITT placed filled, provide cogent evidence for the need for an explanation as to how bursaries are allocated to different subjects?

I think the STRB are sending a coded message to the DfE in this report about the lack of bursaries in some of the subjects that struggle most to recruit. The DfE’s answer, backed by HM Treasury, would no doubt be that there are few graduates in these subjects to entice into teaching, so the bursary would be paid to those already choosing teaching as a career. Funny how that argument doesn’t work for physics or mathematics.

A couple of other interesting nuggets for the STRB report:

• In 2024/25, male teachers had higher earnings overall than female teachers across all school types. Median earnings were higher in secondary schools than in primary and nursery schools.

• Based on proprietary benchmarking data, starting pay for teachers is between the lowest quartile and median for roles of comparable size and scope. …. The comparative basic salary position of leadership roles in primary schools is generally below the market base salary data, whilst roles in secondary schools are better aligned to the market base salary data.

• The full-time equivalent (FTE) teacher workforce decreased by 0.1% or 432 between 2023 and 2024. Secondary schools once again saw the largest absolute increase in teacher numbers.

• The proportion of teachers from an ethnic minority background remained stable, with 89% of teachers across state-funded schools being white. The proportion of white teachers is higher in nursery and primary schools than in secondary schools and increases with seniority in leadership roles.

Finally, a word about leadership pay. The STRB concluded that:

2.25 The comparative salary position of leadership roles in primary schools falls below the market salary data in all regions, whilst leadership roles in secondary schools are better aligned to the market salary data. P11

After a year of tracking headteacher vacancies, I do wonder why anyone would take on a job both teaching and leading a small primary school for a salary of little more than £60,000 from September when a classroom teacher with no responsibilities, and a similar length of service could be earning nearly £53,000.

Little more than £10,000 extra, for both the loss of the 1,265 working time protection and all the extra responsibilities, seems like a gross imbalance in differentials. This is especially the case when all primary leaders, and not just headteachers, work on average 5.1 hours more than classroom teachers. Table B14 page 91.

I will say more about the issue of headteachers’ pay when I publish my review of headteacher vacancies for 2025-26 at the end of August.

The saviour for the government when considering future pay is ‘falling pupil numbers’. This issue makes the need to recruit teachers, especially with the current age distribution of those teachers in employment less of an overall challenge.

However, as indicated earlier in this post, dealing with the consequences of different primary, secondary and further education labour markets may be a real issue for the next STRB Report.

ITT: subjects recruiting from UK graduates still in trouble

Posted on by
5

The DfE’s June data on the current round of applications and offers for postgraduate ITT courses still revels that the 2026 round is separating into two distinct sections. Subjects where applications are likely to come from anywhere in the world are either already meeting their Teacher Supply Model target for 2026 entry, or should do so on the current trajectory. Subjects where home recruitment is likely to dominate applications seem more at risk of missing their targets.

SubjectTarget 2026/27offer May 2026Fill: May viewJune offersFill: June view
Chemistry6901015YES1199YES
Biology675474PROBABLY542POSSIBLY
Mathematics20002169YES2495YES
Design & Technology620481YES562YES
Art & Design605527YES601YES
Geography685407POSSIBLY455NO
Classics7540NO43NO
English19801418PROBABLY1586POSSIBLY
Drama370253PROBABLY283PROBABLY
Business Studies1200270NO301NO
Music260192POSSIBLY215PROBABLY
Religious Education450269POSSIBLY308NO
Others2035418NO456NO
History520872YES974YES
Modern Languages10851107YES1214YES
Physics8101342YES1466YES
Physical Education6551298YES1405YES
Computing565686YES794YES

Based upon ‘offer’ recorded in the June update from the DfE, and with just three more reports to come before courses commence, I have made four downgrades and one upgrade to my expected outcomes for the current recruitment round.

I have downgraded expected outcomes for, biology, geography, English and Religious Education, including reducing Religious Education to a ‘No’. however, I am aware that there is a vigorous advertising campaign currently underway by the Religious Education sector, reminiscent of the RETRI initiative led by Dr John Gay a quarter of a century ago. Success in attracting new applicants could mean that it would be possible to hit the target for Religious Education. I do wonder why more subject groups don’t invest in advertising the benefits of becoming a teacher.

If science graduates discover there is space for those with some biology, then that subject might reach its target. Music looks likely to meet the target, but that target, in my opinion, has been set far too low to meet demand from schools, especially with the DfE’s latest initiative on extra-curricular activities for all, including within the scope, music. It will be difficult to achieve success in music without more teachers. However, meeting the low target will justify the removal of the bursary for music ITT.

Applications from outside of the United Kingdom represented 25% of all applications this June compared with 18% in the data for June 2025. If all non-Uk applicants had applied for secondary sector courses, then they would currently account for more than a third of applicants across all subjects, compared with a quarter in June 2025.

More evidence of the lack of interest in teaching from hone-based students comes from the fact that the number of graduates in the age group ’21 and under’ applying for courses is only 115 higher this June at 3,685 compared with an increase in applications of nearly 2,000 from the ’30 to 34’ age grouping.

The increasing interest in teaching from men continues, with applications up from 16,796 in June 2025 to 21,774 this June! It would be useful to know more about where this increase is focussed, and what the implications might be for the sector.

As ever, the DfE continues not to share ethnicity data with the sector. With so many overseas applicants at present, is that a helpful omission from the dataset?

Higher Education continues to bear the brut of the increase in applications, with ‘partner led’ and ‘salaried’ routes static, and only a small increase in applications to SCITT courses. However, PG teaching apprenticeships have seen a healthy increase in applications from 6,328 to 10, 493. However, offers are little changed at 1,066, compared with 966 in June 2025.

Perhaps because of the arrival of the postgraduate apprenticeship route, offers for the ‘salaried route was only 266 this June, compared with 518 in June 2025. Mr Gove’s brave new world of 15 years ago now looks like a distant dream, as higher education continues to take the bulk of applications, proving the resilience of the sector in the face of determined onslaughts during the coalition government to remove its dominance from the training of new graduate teachers.

With the end of the school term rapidly approaching, the next three months traditionally see relatively few new offers: will this year be any different, especially given the press comments about graduates unable to find work, or does teaching still look like an unattractive carer to debt strapped UK graduates?

With falling rolls affecting job prospects after training  and the acquisition of more student debt, and a possible below inflation pay settlement, the signs for increased interest in teaching as a career during the rest of the recruitment round are not good.

More thoughts on the ITT round for 2026

Posted on by
1

Yesterday, although a bank holiday in England, more people listed as from the United Kingdom than listed as from the United States viewed this blog. It’s been a while since that has happened.

I guess it was because of the post about the May ITT numbers I posted yesterday. Yesterday also looks like a bank holiday that higher education ignores. I am not surprised as there can be too many bank holidays on Mondays in May, and that fact can play havoc with timetabling.

Anyway, thanks for viewing, as, wherever you are from, your support is much appreciated.

After producing my prediction table in yesterday’s post MayDay for some ITT subjects: joy for others? | John Howson

I thought that I would delve a bit more deeply into possible outcomes. Looking at 2025 data between May and September, and ignoring all applicants not from England, there were 11,773 more candidates in 2024 and 13,387 more candidates recorded in 2025 between May and September.

At 18th May 2026, there were 33,344 candidates, so it seems likely that candidate numbers will be up on the past two years in terms of candidates from England. However, as this also contains candidates for the primary sector, that factor needs to be taken into account. This year, with a low ‘target’ for primary, I would be surprised to see many more candidates applying for primary sector courses, as most courses will presumably be showing as ‘full’.  

However, what about the subjects listed as anything other than ‘Yes’ will fill in the previous table? How do they fare?

The following table is based upon ‘offers’ not ‘candidates’ numbers between May and September for 2025.

subjectMay-25Sep-25difference% increase offers May to September
Others4185008220%
Classics44541023%
Physical Education1395177538027%
History832113230036%
Physics1246169845236%
Mathematics2169314297345%
Religious Education34750816146%
English1467216169447%
Drama23434911549%
Music27641614051%
Art & Design709108637753%
Business Studies21232911755%
Geography731113540455%
Modern Languages1089170962057%
Biology1094173363958%
Chemistry682109140960%
Design & Technology46678331768%
Computing53794240575%
  
Total Secondary1353020043651348%

There is no doubt that had the DfE output from the Teacher Supply Model remained the same as I 2025, this table might have looked very different.

I think that I might upgrade Geography from ‘possibly’ to probably’ on this data. As music had a bursary last year, I am not yet prepared to upgrade that subject to ‘probably’, at least until after July numbers, and the applications from 2026 graduates have been taken into account. The same is true for Religious Education.

Another area of uncertainty remains around the sciences. The total target had been reached by the end of May, but biology numbers were below target. Will providers top up with students to make courses viable? My guess is, yes, as there seems to be no penalty to the provider for doing so. The risk is all carried by the trainee.

In the future, I think that the DfE needs to consider disaggregating the 2,035 places listed as for ‘other’ subjects. Not to do so makes the data increasingly meaningless, especially once the fact that more than a third of applicants come from outside of England is also taken into account.

Finally, as we know for the annual DfE’s ITT census, not all offers turn into students counted in the census. I might try and look at what level of over-recruitment might be sensible to ensure 100% of the DfE’s target by the time of the ITT census, after allowing for the fact the TSM target should include a percentage of in-course wastage.

Afterall, the aim is to ensure the labour market has the qualified teachers it needs for all students to be taught by properly qualified teachers.  

Higher Education: markets v planning for the sector

Posted on by
Reply

I don’t often write about higher education, as, although I spent more than a decade running a large department in a university, and also writing about activity-based costings in higher education, I don’t consider myself well enough briefed to comment regularly.

There are exceptions to my self-imposed rule, and this post is one of those. What persuaded me to write this post was a link to this article Universities on the brink: Decoding the UK higher education funding crisis and the path forward | The Educationist

Now, for most of this century, and indeed the last decade of the previous century, higher education providers have been free to operate in a market, with limited government intervention, except in areas such as teacher education, and providing courses for both doctors and the professions allied to medicine.

As I discovered when running courses for new heads of departments in universities about how higher education funding worked, most academics had limited knowledge and often less interest in the subject when asked to take on running department: at that time; even Deans were often more interested in course quality than the financial health of the departments they headed.

Regardless of the reasons behind the current financial malaise, should the market be left to bring the sector back to financial equilibrium? Of course, the government could just throw money at the problem, but I guess it hasn’t the funds, and anyway, the DfE might put NEETs and SEND above bailing out universities in any priority list.

However, I don’t think the government should leave everything to the market. After all, it is the largest consumer of graduates: 30,000 teachers per year to be trained; NHS staff; the defence forces; the civil service and local government. These are all consumers of graduates in large numbers.

Allowing the market to solve the financial problems might have unintended consequences. A major concern for me is around the mobility of new graduates. Many years ago, I studied where trainee teachers went to study, and there was a correlation between where a first degree or higher-level courses was studied, and where individuals entered teacher preparation courses. Universities without schools of education provided fewer recruits to teaching.

Well, Teach First helped solve that problem, at least in London, but I am concerned that market driven course closures could leave parts of the country without degree courses in some subject areas vital for the public sector.

For this reason alone, I think the government should ensure some form of course planning for the higher education sector, so that there are not areas without say, music courses or philosophy. Both are degree courses important as part of the pipeline for future teachers of music and religious education. As these are also both subjects that already fail to recruit enough graduates into teaching, reducing the number studying them on degree courses even further would endanger that pipeline even more.

The intervention of the government in place planning, even at a broad level, also makes economic sense to me, as moving students from loans to welfare is also not a good use of public money. How to manage the balance between leaving the future for higher education to the market, and an orderly return to fiscal rectitude might at least be worth a discussion amongst politicians and those that advise them.

Religious Education – the need for qualified teachers

Posted on by
Reply

In a recent post on this blog about the DfE’s modelling of trainee teacher needs, I wrote that

‘However, has this re-assessment of need gone too far? Based on … my own current research into vacancies for teachers of music, I think the DfE has been realistic in its approach. ‘

While, I stand by that judgement, I have also been reminded by Deborah Weston, championing on behalf of those concerned with the teaching of religious education in schools that the cutback in trainee numbers probably allows little room for the replacement of the ‘under’ or even ‘un-qualified’ teachers currently teaching religious education in our schools.

Prompted by Deborah, I looked at the trends from the Teacher Workforce surveys concerning the use of those with ‘no qualification in the subject’ teaching religious education over the period between the end of the Blair/Brown Labour government and the end of the Conservative period of government. Of course, recent years have been impacted by the covid pandemic, and its consequences, but there is a clear trend that is observable.

The chart shows the four key types of secondary schools, of which the 11-18 school line is probably the most significant.

At the end of the Labour government, partly I expect as a result of the economic crisis of 2008, the percentage of teachers of religious education with ‘no qualification in the subject’ was reducing. However, the percentage levelled out as school rolls began to increase again, and teacher supply entered into an extended period of years when teacher preparation programmes missed their targets.

There was a brief respite as a result of covid, but in the most recent years, as trainee numbers have fallen, so the percentage of teachers with ‘no qualification in the subject’ has reached levels not seen since well before 2010.

As a result, the question now is, was the DfE right to cut trainee targets for religious education from 780 last year to 450 this year? On the basis that including unfilled places from previous recruitment rounds was a mistake, as I have always maintained, then the answer is clearly, yes, the DfE have taken the correct decision.

However, in subjects such as religious education, where most pupils only study the subject for a limited period of time each week, managing recruitment is easier for schools, if qualified staff are available.

I would add that in my opinion, religious education when taught by well-prepared and knowledgeable teachers can be a really valuable subject, especially at this time in the history of our multi-cultural society, where both many different faiths are practiced, and a growing minority profess to having no faith in religion at all.

If the government cannot see their way to increase the stated need for trainee religious education teachers, providers can always over-recruit, at least to higher education courses, where government funding isn’t an issue.

In addition to pre-entry training, the DfE might also like to consider another approach to the issue of shortage of religious education teachers: upskilling those presently teaching the subject, but without an appropriate qualification.  If it is important that a subject be offered on the curriculum, it beholds government to ensure it is taught properly.  

Spending cash on upskilling will no doubt help retention, and thus save on recruitment and training costs. However, apart from in mathematics and the sciences, it hasn’t really featured as a policy objective for many years: surely that’s a mistake.

I hope that the religious affairs lobby is able to persuade the government that significantly reducing the percentage of inappropriately qualified teachers of religious education should be a key policy objective.

ITT Offers – public money being wasted?

Posted on by
1

The DfE has today published the April data on postgraduate ITT courses, as at 20th April 2026. Initial teacher training application statistics for courses starting in the 2026 to 2027 academic year – Apply for teacher training – GOV.UK

This is the first month where offers can be compared with the DfE’s required need for each subject for September 2026 courses. I have previously posted about the draconian changes to the demand in many subjects as required by the DfE that have resulted from a different approach to unfilled vacancies. ITT Numbers for 2026 – brutal realism from DfE or big risk? | John Howson

Here is my assessment of possible outcomes for September, when courses commence, based upon current offers and past trends. It will be interesting to see how my view compares with that of Jack Worth at NfER.

SubjectTarget 2026/27offer April 2026DfE identified needFILL?
Chemistry690829-139YES
Biology675398277YES
Mathematics20001752248YES
Design & Technology620382238POSSIBLY
Art & Design605449156YES
Geography685353332POSSIBLY
Classics753639NO
English19801176804PROBABLY
Drama370207163PROBABLY
Business Studies1200224976NO
Music26016199POSSIBLY
Religious Education450339111POSSIBLY
Others20353721663NO
History520736-216YES
Modern Languages1085946139YES
Physics8101140-330YES
Physical Education6551175-520YES
Computing56553926YES

In some subjects, such as history, physics!, physical education and chemistry, providers have already made more offers than required ‘need’.  This demonstrates the danger of leaving it so late in the recruitment cycle to announce estimated demand.

In the past, these numbers used to appear before Christmas. With a rolling offer system in place, rather than a defined closing date, leaving the announcement of ‘need’ until April is likely to cost someone money. Will the DfE pay bursaries to all students offered a place, even if recruitment is above the stated ‘need’? If so, that could be seen as a waste of money.

However, of more concern are the subjects where, even with the new numbers for ‘need’, there are unlikely to be enough applicants to fill all the places. Based on previous trends, classics, business studies and the ’others’ grouping will not meet their ‘need’ number. I think it is time that the ‘other’ category, with 2,035 places is disaggregated into different subjects, after all, it is now by far the largest group in the subject’s table.

I have some concern about where design and technology, geography, music and religious education will produce enough offers to meet the revised ‘need’. However, I can now see why the bursary was removed from music. I still think that was a serious error of judgement, as this is a subject where only those with appropriate subject knowledge are accepted onto courses. Music has one of the highest applications to offer ratios of any subject. Current offers are the second lowest April ‘offer’ number since 2018.

What happens in the wider economy, and graduate job market, will determine the outcome of this recruitment round. I suspect there will be a summer surge in applications, as new graduates discover how tough the job market has become. This should mean a good year for teaching course. However, many applicants may now have found they have left it too late to secure a place for this autumn. This year will really be a case of ‘the early bird that catches the worm’.

I will now delve deeper into the data for another post about the nature of applicants and applications as revealed in this month’s data.

ITT January 2026: lots to ponder

Posted on by
Reply

On the face of it, the January 2026 data around postgraduate ITT applications and offers looks good news for the DfE, and for schools Initial teacher training application statistics for courses starting in the 2026 to 2027 academic year – Apply for teacher training – GOV.UK

By the 19th January 2026, there had been applications from 26,217 candidates. This compared with 20,771 at the January data point in 2025. Candidates applying for primary courses were up from 7,283 to 8,676: a modest increase.

For secondary courses candidate numbers this year were, 19,232 compared with 14,862 at last January’s datapoint. That looks like very good news, perhaps worthy of a Statement in Parliament.

However, it is worth delving a bit deeper into the data before putting out too much bunting. Applications from the ‘Rest of the world’ account for 8,353 of this January’s total, compared with 5,088 last January. That means that this group now account for a whopping 30% of candidates. This compares with 23% of candidates from this grouping in last January’s data.

Of even more concern, is that the numbers of candidates from the United Kingdom haven’t kept pace with the growth in overseas applicants. The growth in applicant numbers from the North of England has been especially weak; only 90 more compared with last year from the Yorkshire and The Humber region, and only 71 more from the North East.

Admittedly, the North West has seen an increase of over 400 applicants, and London, over 500 more. However, the South East only has around 140 more applicants than last year. This is around 7% more, but this percentage pales into insignificance compared to the more than two thirds increase in applicants for ‘the Rest of the World’.

The dominance of the ‘Rest of the World’ applicants as a share of the total makes commenting upon the data challenging. Normally at this time of year, I might be happy to predict those subjects likely to miss their ITT targets, based upon more than 30 years of data collection. Not knowing how the ‘Rest of the world’ applicants are spread both between primary and secondary phase, and within secondary phase by subjects adds a unique challenge to any predictions this year.

However, based upon ‘offers’, and the outcome of the 2025 ITT census, and assuming no significant change in the pattern of applications over the rest of the cycle – such as a significant weakening of the demand for new graduates or another pandemic – I am happy to make some suggestions for the outcomes based upon current trends.

I expect that Religious Education, Modern Foreign Languages, Music, Classics and the ‘other’ group will all miss their target this year.

I am not sure about biology, where offers are down by 194, but the subject reached 151% of target last year. I am also, as yet, uncertain about Geography, where offers are down, but the subject surpassed its target last year.

Despite the increase in offers, I still don’t expect Physics, Design & Technology, Business Studies and Drama to meet their targets, although on this showing they might do better than last year, assuming those with offers actually turn up when courses start: always a worry this early in the recruitment round.

On the current data, Physical Education and History, as ever, will surpass their targets. Mathematics, computing and Chemistry, should also meet their targets. I am unsure about English, where offers are down, and the subject only just beat its target in 2025.

Overall, I think that the DfE needs to consider how the statistics are presented, if a nearly a third of applicants might need a visa to train. How does this fit in with other government policies? Perhaps we can set up training courses overseas, so that these new would-be teachers from the ‘Rest of the world’ can work in the new State Schools to be established as a part of the DfE’s export drive, announced last week.