What is the point of bursaries for trainee teachers not on routes into teaching that pay a salary? The assumption must be that an inducement, such as a bursary would help recruit more trainees, or at least keep those that want to be a teacher on their teacher preparation programme.
Each year, the Department for Education decides which subjects will be allocated bursaries. In some subjects, the DfE also works with other bodies, such as subject associations, to offer alternative higher amounts of funding through scholarships. Both bursaries and scholarships have the advantage of being tax free to the recipients.
In the days when the Conservative government championed the Baccalaureate subjects above all others, it was understandable that subjects not included in the Baccalaureate might be regarded of less concern than those that made up the Baccalaureate, and thus that these subjects did not need bursaries, even if an insufficient number of trainees were recruited.
However, for courses operating in 2024/25 and 2025/26, the DfE did pay a bursary of £10,000 to those training to become teachers of music.
The bursary for music was not included within the list of eligible subjects for the courses operating in 2026/27. No reason was provided by the DfE for the removal of the bursary.
However, recruitment targets for music have been missed in six of the last seven years including for the current trainee group (2019/20–2025/26).
The failure to recruit to target has meant fewer music teachers in schools, and a drop in entries to public examinations. Between 2010/11, and the start of the coalition government, and 2022/23, entries for A Level music declined from 8,709 to 4,910. Interestingly, the percentage of A* and A grades increased from 24.3% to 41.6%. This might suggest that it was State schools, with their wider range of pupil abilities that saw the biggest fall in entries, as schools struggling to recruit music teachers axed examination courses that they could no longer staff.
Interestingly, a by-produce of the break-up of schools into many academy trusts might have meant that opportunities for collaboration between schools also declined after 2010, and the Academies Act.
How bad has the challenge of recruiting teachers of music been over the past few years? Were the ITT targets set by the DfE, and based upon the DfE’s own Teacher Supply Model accurate or over-optimistic in the need for teachers of music in state schools?
Pool
Music
Jan
Feb
March
April
May
June
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
251
2019
227
185
116
55
-57
-104
-253
-172
-196
-215
256
2020
205
146
77
24
-59
-86
-117
-144
-162
-171
416
2021
390
358
303
243
161
117
78
45
14
-9
315
2022
256
208
119
12
-128
-214
-305
-352
-395
-422
228
2023
156
81
-3
-126
-278
-356
2024
2025
330
2026
265
Data from TeachVac and dataforeducation
The table starts with the ‘pool’ of music trainees likely to be available to state schools that year and reduces it by one for every vacancy recorded during the year. The minus number is the excess of vacancies over the ‘pool ‘number
Between 2018 and 2023, only the cohort of trainees recruited during Covid, and entering the labour market in 2021, provided sufficient trainee numbers to have allowed schools to be secure in filling vacancies for September.
Of course, in addition to new entrants to teaching there are those returning to teaching or entering from other sectors, such as further education or independent schools.
As a rule of thumb, perhaps half of vacancies might be filled by new entrants, and the other half from other sources. The data in the table would suggest that in most years, if demand from private schools was also taken into account, the labour market would need to have ensured a steady supply of ‘returners’ to fill all the advertised vacancies for music teacher posts.
Each year, for January appointments, returners would have been critical for schools seeking to make an appointment, including those teachers returning to England from teaching in schools in the southern hemisphere, with a December year-end. Normally, somewhere around 100 vacancies for a January start were advertised each year between 2019 and 2022.
So, why, if there is a shortage of teachers, and the Teacher Supply Model did not seem to have been overestimated demand, was the bursary axed? Could it have been the age-old HM Treasury view that if there is a base number that would enter teacher training under any circumstances, then why pay them a bursary?
In the absence of any other explanation, it is difficult to think of any other reason than this cynical approach for the axing of the bursary for music. Put another way, Ministers just didn’t care enough about music, and weren’t aware of the contribution of all forms of music to the national wealth and our export drive to keep the bursary when it was suggested it be axed.
Sadly, the music lobby hasn’t yet changed the government’s mind. However, there is still time to do so for this recruitment round. The data showing the difference in ‘offers’ for ITT courses, between the January 2025 and January 2026 data points should, by itself, be enough to force a rethink, or a -U- turn, if you prefer it.
2026 ENTRY TO PG ITT
MUSIC
2025 TARGET
565
OFFERS JANUARY 2026
70
OFFERS JANUARY 2025
91
TOTAL OFFERS 2025
416
DIFFERENCE 2025 TOTAL AND 2025 January OFFERS
325
PROJECTION for 2026
395
ESTIMATED SHORTFALL
170
A decline in ‘offers’ from 91 to 70 is of serious concern, as these are the group most likely to be prepared to become a music teacher at whatever cost. My advice to Ministers: announce the bursary for music has been added to the list for entry in 2026 or watch the subject decline even further.
Today, Sunday 25th January 2026, marks the 14th birthday of this blog, so thanks for taking the time to read what I have written since January 2013.
Copilot tells me that 96% of blogs started in January 2013 have fallen by the wayside by 2026: but can you believe everything AI tells you?
Sadly, WordPress doesn’t publish such statistics, but it would be interesting to know how many have persevered with what is now a somewhat outdated form of communication. Unlike others, I haven’t switched to creating a podcast, although I did experiment with one way back in 2007; but that’s another story, as is the online chatroom, pioneered with the TES back in 2003.
By the time of its 14th birthday, this blog has had over 180,00 views by more than 97,000 visitors according to WordPress of the 1,59 posts that I have written since the blog started in 2013.
The most popular has been the one on ‘how much holiday do teachers really have’, with more than 6,100 views since it first appeared on the 20th May 2022.
Of course, at the opposite end of the scale, there are many posts where I have been the only person to have read what I wrote, according to WordPress. However, on Christmas Day, 2022, someone downloaded all the posts up to that date: hopefully, they also read them.
Between October 2023 and May 2025, while I was the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services on Oxfordshire County Council, I took a holiday from posting on the blog,
Since, I started writing posts again in May of 2025, after ceasing to be an elected politician, readership has been slowly increasing, to now reach double what it was at its low point. This is mostly thanks to readers from around the world once again deciding to view what I write.
So, what do I write about? Mostly education; frequently teacher supply matters – a research interest of mine for more than 40 years, if you start when I began counting vacancies for headteachers. My interest in ITT data goes back to 1987, when as a new senior leader in a School of Education I was faced with dealing with the consequences of an 100% over-recruitment on a primary PGCE.
I am most proud of the wok on Jacob’s Law, to ensure all children have a school place even if they move home mid-year, as often happens when a child is taken into care. No school with spare places should ever refuse such a child a place. What to do if they are bright enough for a grammar school place when moving from a comprehensive system is a question the government still needs to address.
The blog will continue into its next year, but as I approach my 80th birthday in 2027, perhaps the blog won’t make its 20th birthday: who knows. And, finally another reason for not producing a podcast; you cannot see the data tables, include din many of the posts.
One should never look a gift horse in the mouth, and today’s DfE announcement of CPD worth £200 million for:
“new courses available to all teaching staff will deepen knowledge of how to adapt their teaching to meet a wide range of needs in the classroom, including visual impairments and speech and language needs.
Teachers will learn about the things we know can transform how children access education, such as using assistive technology like speech to text dictation tools and building awareness of additional needs amongst all pupils, so every child can go on to succeed. “ £200 million landmark SEND teacher training programme – GOV.UK
Is clearly to be welcomed.
If the aim by the DfE is to reach half the teaching force, plus a percentage of non-teaching staff, such as teaching assistants, the figure of £200 million might work out at around £1,000 per person per course.
Now, I guess you can get a lot of on-line self-assessed delivery for that price, but add in face-to-face tuition, with travel and ‘cover’ costs to be taken into consideration, and £1,000 per person doesn’t seem as useful a sum. So, perhaps the government only want to reach say, a quarter of the profession? The news release is silent on such matters.
I am always sceptical when a news item is released on a Friday; a good day for burying news with awkward questions attached. Unless, the White Paper on SEND, when it appears, mandates a qualification necessary to work with SEND, and an advance qualification to work in a special school or unit, these schools may still have a disproportional number of under-qualified teachers.
Is it better either to create a programme to upgrade all teachers (as in this announcement) or to focus on the training needs of those teaching children and young people in special settings, along with upgrading the diagnostic tools to identify as early as possible children that will need additional support.
As with all policies, it is a judgement call. This government has opted for the ‘spread it thin’ approach, with an eye-catching headline amount. Incidentally, is the £200mn for one year or spread over several years? I am sure a journalist will ask.
So, thanks for something, but where is the cash coming from? Will other CPD be cut, or is this new money from HM Treasury: an unlikely proposition in the current cash-strapped climate faced by government.
The other question still to be addressed is around who will deliver the programme, and how will procurement ensure that the DfE obtains best value for the money?
At the time, I pointed out to the DfE that TeachVac was already doing most of what was required, and for free. As my post above shows, the editor of the TES at the time also had something to say.
Sadly, and probably because of procurement rules – although the DfE could have sanctioned a trial of TeachVac to understand the requirements of any vacancy site – the DfE spent public money procuring a site that wasn’t fit for purpose. At least with the browser I use, the site still has significant shortcomings from the point of view of jobhunters.
Although free to use, it is not mandatory for state schools to use the DfE site, so, some do, and some don’t. This leaves jobseekers with the need to search more than one site to check for all vacancies: not a good idea at the best of times, and certainly not when falling rolls make jobs harder to come by.
The DfE site also has its idiosyncrasies. Although it tells users that jobs appear with the most recent first, that isn’t always the case. Page two of a list may well start with a duplication of some jobs from page one, and new jobs, not recorded earlier may pop up almost anywhere in a listing.
Perhaps.it might be better to lists jobs by closing dates, as that is what matters to many jobseekers: do I have time to apply for this job?
Some vacancies appear with either very short – is there an internal candidate – or very long periods between advert and closing date. The latter schools risk losing candidates to schools that are fleeter of foot in the recruitment process, and being left with only candidates that they wouldn’t want to appoint, except in those areas where there is an over-supply of teachers.
As job hunting is such a key part of their members’ work-life, I have always been surprised that the teacher associations haven’t been more vocal with the DfE in demanding a cheap and purposeful job board, using the best of modern technology at the lowest cost to schools. Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised, as when I tried to sell the idea of TeachVac in 2013, there was no interest.
Now I am once again researching vacancies, I can cheerfully say, mixing up TLA, technicians and other non-teaching jobs with teaching vacancies, and including random jobs like a drama post or TV and film vacancy in the music vacancy list strikes me as irritating, but perhaps it is good to persuade teachers to look beyond their original search criteria?
I am sure the DfE could make money by inviting private schools to use their site. I have seen a couple of vacancies for such schools on the DfE site, but it is overwhelmingly state schools.
Perhaps it is time for a rethink of the most cost-effective way for schools to recruit teachers and candidates to find the vacancies?
A report by Prof. John Howson, Oxford Teacher Services Ltd
Executive Summary
· More than 400 state schools in England advertised a headteacher vacancy between August and Christmas 2025.
· 17% of special school headteacher adverts were not filled at first advert and had been re-advertised by Christmas 2025.
· 16% of Roman Catholic schools have had to re-advertise their head teacher vacancy.
· 26% of schools that advertised a head teacher vacancy in September had re-advertised the post by Christmas 2025.
· 45 of the 91 secondary schools advertising for a new headteacher quoted a starting salary of more than £100,000 – not all schools quoted a starting salary.
· Some schools offered non-pay benefits as well as the cash salary.
· The lowest starting salary quoted for a headteacher vacancy was £53,000.
Introduction
Between 1983 and 2022, I produced an annual report into the turnover of headteachers in state schools in England. The data collection was paused in July 2022, just before I took on the role of Cabinet Member for Children’s Service in Oxfordshire. After ceasing to be a councillor in May 2025, and hence relinquishing my Cabinet role, I once again started reviewing advertisements for headteachers posted by state schools in England.
Most headteacher vacancies appear on the DfE’s quirky teacher vacancy platform. However, a small number also appear in the ‘tes’ on-line vacancy portal. When I started collecting headteacher vacancies in the 1980s, the ‘tes’ paper edition was the main vehicle for posting headteacher vacancies.
At that time, it was mandatory for these vacancies to be posted nationally. Although not a requirement today, I suspect that most vacancies for headteachers are still posted nationally on vacancy sites such as the DfE site. Among the vacancies posted there can be wide variations in the length of time between a vacancy appearing on the DfE vacancy website and the closing date for applications.
Presumably, if there is a strong internal candidate, either within the school or the Multi Academy Trust to which the school belongs, there is no incentive to have the standard three weeks to a month period between the vacancy and the closing date.
Looking at the data collected this autumn, it has been possible to identify one school in special measures that advertised a vacancy collected on a Monday, but with a closing date for the Friday of the same week – was there a strong internal candidate? Perhaps an acting interim headteacher, so the advertisement was a mere formality?
My methodology for the survey has been to search both the DfE and ‘tes’ vacancy sites at least every week, and during busy periods more than once a week. This is a more accurate methodology than just counting vacancies using Artificial Intelligence, since the DfE’s website has a habit of regularly posting some vacancies more than once at the same point in time. This quirk has been a part of the DfE’s site since its inception, and can make simple vacancy counting inaccurate.
While some schools have a short space of time between the advert appearing and the closing date, by way of contrast, some other schools advertise well in advance of their closing date. Five schools that advertised in December 2025 had a closing date in February 2026.
Too long a period between advertising a vacancy and the closing date for applications can be a risk for a school. Previous surveys found that candidates often applied for several vacancies, especially for primary headships advertised during busy periods for vacancies. Keeping a vacancy open too long, and then waiting before interviewing can risk losing good candidates to another school where the process is shorter in time.
Faith schools often fall into the latter category of schools with long periods between the vacancy being advertised and the closing date, especially if they are not part of an academy trust.
One key change since the days of paper advertising of vacancies for headships has been the importance of December as a period for advertising such vacancies. In the days of print advertising, few vacancies were advertised in December, and previous reports warned against the risk of such an advertisement, since few likely candidates were reading the job columns in December, and many advertised vacancies were often re-advertised in January.
In the modern ‘on-line’ era, where AI can help do the job search for a candidate, advertising in December, as soon as a governing body or Trust has been informed of a resignation is no longer a handicap. Indeed, in December 2025, there were 133 headteacher vaccines recorded, compared with just 56 in September. 2025
Not surprisingly, primary schools of all descriptions dominated the total vacancies advertised. The primary school sector accounted for 299 or the 436 vacancies recorded between August and Christmas 2025.
By contrast, there were 91 vacancies for secondary schools, including two for all-through schools with a primary section. Such all-through schools were fashionable a decade ago, when schools were converting to become academies. However, I have never been a fan of such schools, preferring the 1944 Education Act requirement of a split between the primary and secondary phases, at whatever age it occurs.
Indeed, there are still some ‘Middle’ schools in existence with a transfer age of either 12 or 13, rather than at age 11, where the vast majority of pupils still transfer from one sector to the other.
Unlike in previous studies of headteacher vacancies since the1980s, this analysis collected state nursery school vacancies and vacancies for special schools as well as the vacancies for primary and secondary school headships. To date, there have been two vacancies for headteachers of state nursery schools, and 44 for headteachers of state special schools. There has also been one vacancy for a Sixth Form College (16-19) run under Schools’ Regulations and managed by a university.
Vacancies recorded by sector
Sector
Readvertised
Vacancy
Percentage Re-advertised
Primary
19
298
6%
Secondary
3
88
3%
Special
9
44
20%
Independent/other
0
1
0%
Nursery
0
2
0%
All Through
0
2
0%
Sixth Form College
0
1
0%
31
436
7%
Vacancies by control of the school
The majority of schools that advertised for a headteacher were not faith schools of any description. These non-faith schools consisted of both ‘maintained’ schools, where the local upper tier authority was the de jure employer of the headteacher, even though decisions on hiring and firing were taken by individual schools, and not the local authority. As a result of this anomaly between the de jure and de facto employment position, however small the school is, it is still subject to the apprenticeship Levy, as a result of the local authority’s position as employer.
Schools that were not ‘maintained’ were academies, either as an increasingly rare ‘standalone’ academy or as part of a Multi Academy Trust overseen by a Chief Executive. In some smaller Trusts, the Chief Executive may also be the headteacher of a school within the Trust. In that case the vacancy was recorded. Where the Chief Executive was not a head of a named school the vacancy was not included in this survey.
The two key Christian denominations of the Church of England, and the Roman Catholic Church, accounted for 126 vacancies between them in this survey (Church of England, 79, and the Roman Catholic Church, 47 vacancies). There were also two joint Church of England and Methodist Church primary schools and one Methodist primary school that advertised for a headteacher during the August to Christmas 2025 period.
In addition, one school of another Christian denomination advertised for a headteacher during the survey period. No schools of a non-Christian religions were recorded as advertising for a headteacher during the period under review.
Of course, such schools could have advertised their headteacher vacancy in locations specific to their religion, and those vacancies would not then be picked up by this survey if the school did not also advertise on the DfE vacancy site.
Vacancies by control of the school – faith groups
Control of School
Readvertised
Vacancy
Percentage Re-advertised
Church of England
3
79
4%
CE/M
0
2
0%
Methodist Church
0
1
0%
Roman Catholic
8
47
17%
Other Denominations
1
1
100%
No Faith
19
306
6%
Total
31
436
7%
Although the survey does not currently record the Trust to which academies belong, it is possible to discern some of the policies adopted by Trusts around advertising. Some Trusts advertise the vacancy with the address of their headquarters, rather than the address of the school. This is obviously necessary for new schools that are not yet open, but can be confusing for vacancies relating to established schools located away from the Trust’s headquarters.
As noted, some Trusts also advertise for ‘Executive headteachers. These have only been included when it is clear that they are also the headteacher of a specific school within the Trust, and not just responsible for a group of schools.
In 2026, the survey’s methodology will consider trying to capture more information about the Trust a school belongs to at the time the vacancy is recorded.
Re-advertisements
As has been shown in the previous tables in this report, some schools do not manage to make an appointment after advertising a headteacher vacancy.
This survey records a re-advertisement as a repeat vacancy for the same headteacher post with a new closing date at least two weeks after the first recorded closing date. This methodology had been in use since the inception of my headteacher vacancy surveying in the 1980s.
At that time, in the 1980s, it allowed for errors in the original print advertisement to be corrected or the same original vacancy to be advertised for several weeks without counting as a re-advertisement.
With the advent of on-line vacancy advertising, the ‘closing’ date for applications is clear, and it is obvious if it has been altered. These days ‘closing dates’ for vacancies on the DfE vacancy site also specify the latest time that applications can be received.
As a result of some vacancies appearing on the DfE vacancy site with a very short period between the vacancy being captured and the closing date, it has been deemed prudent to retain the clear two-week period before a vacancy can be described as a re-advertisement.
Even though the data on headteachers has only been collected over a five-month period, some clear trends around re-advertising stand out. Two types of schools dominate the schools that decided to re-advertise, presumably because of an inadequate number of applicants suitable for appointment to their headship.
Of the 31 re-advertisements, (including three schools that re-advertised twice during the period after the original vacancy was recorded, nine were special schools, and 19 were primary schools: just three were secondary schools.
The other group with seemingly significant challenges recruiting a new headteacher were the eight were Roman Catholic schools. These schools represent 17% of all Roman Catholic schools that advertised during the period, (eight schools out of 47). One Roman Catholic school re-advertised twice during the period under review.
It is possible that these percentages for re-advertisements are an under-estimate because of the fact that data collection only started in August 2025. Thus, some re-advertisement may have been recorded as first advertisement because their original vacancy was advertised before August 2025. In the 2026 survey, data for a complete year will overcome this issue. In the 2026 survey, any gap of more than twelve months between an advertisement will create a new vacancy, not a further re-advertisement. However, that is for the future, and not this report.
School types with significant re-advertisements for headteacher vacancies
Type of School
Re-advertised vacancies
Original recorded vacancies for the type
Percentage Re-advertised
Special Schools
9
44
20%
Roman Catholic Schools
8
47
17%
Primary Schools
19
297
6%
At present, it is not possible to determine whether the number of pupils on rolls also affects the likelihood of a school readvertising a post. However, further research will investigate this point. One proxy for the number of pupils on roll is the starting salary offered for a headteacher vacancy.
The significant percentage of Roman Catholic schools re-advertising their headteacher vacancy is not a surprise. Previous surveys, from the 1980s onwards, have often shown such schools with a greater propensity to re-advertise a headteacher vacancy than other non-faith or Church of England schools, especially in the primary school sector.
As this is the first time that special school headteacher vacancies have been collected on a systematic basis by this survey, it would be unfair to do more than just record the high percentage of vacancies re-advertised for the headships of such schools (20% of schools have re-advertised). With SEND such a key policy topic, this level of re-advertisement is, however, a matter for concern.
Regional variations
The nine previous government office regions have been used in the past in this survey as a means of determining any regional trends. Even though such regions no longer exist they do still offer a useful basis for comparison, especially during the current chaos of local government reorganisation outside of the conurbations of England. It seems illogical that some local authorities responsible for schools in historic Berkshire County may have been re-organised three times since 1970: in 1974, in the 1990s, and currently awaiting the results of the present round of re-organisation. However, since the 1963 reorganisation in London, the outer London borough responsible for schooling have remained on largely unchanged boundaries, even though some have been reclassified as inner London boroughs at some point in time by the DfE.
Regional vacancy rate for headteachers
Region
Number of schools with re-advertisements
Number of vacancies
Percentage of re-advertisements
East of England
8
62
13%
East Midlands
1
40
3%
London
3
44
7%
North East
2
10
20%
North West
6
73
8%
South East
2
42
5%
South West
1
48
2%
West Midlands
4
58
7%
Yorkshire & The Humber
3
63
5%
TOTAL
30
436
7%
Little should be made of this data, as it only covers a five-month period. The high percentage for the North East is as a result of two special schools in the region needing to re-advertise their vacancy for a headteacher. Apart from that anomaly, there is no evidence of re-advertising by schools in the north East.
There is no evidence of high price housing areas such as London and the South East affecting the need to re-advertise from this limited dataset. However, the East of England that includes local authorities to the north and east of London does have an above average rate of re-advertisements. This will be an area to watch in 2026 to see if this trend continues.
Starting salary of vacancies advertised
One way that schools can prevent the need to re-advertise in high price areas is to offer competitive salaries. Historically, a school’s salary for the headteacher was decided by the number and age range of pupils, with a supplement for special schools because of their nature.
Around a quarter of a century ago, with schools being handed freedom over their budgets, this rule broke down. For a period of time, schools advertised headteacher vacancies with phrases such as ‘a competitive salary’, but no cash amount or a range of spine points in their advertisement. Some schools still eschew advertising a cash salary or a range of points on the Leadership Scale in their advertisement, but may add incentives by way of non-pay inducements in their details of their headteacher vacancy.
In this survey, 12 secondary schools, four primary schools and three special schools of the 436 schools surveyed contained either no cash value or no indication of points on the Leadership Scale for a starting salary. In their advertisement
Some 256 schools included a cash value, either as a range or a fixed point as the starting salary. Of course, a person appointed might start above the bottom of the advertised range, but without the knowledge of actual starting salaries, those bottom points of any range indicated in the advertisement has been used as a sensible point to take for survey purposes.
Starting Salaries
Type of School
Highest cash starting point
Age range and number of pupils on roll for this school
Highest Leadership Starting point
Age range and number of pupils on roll for this school
Primary
£93,424
836
L28
871
Secondary
£120,000
1418
L37
1817
Special
£115,380
137
L25
166
Not the same school for cash and Leadership starting point
There were 44 secondary schools, and five special schools with a starting salary of more than six figures (over £100,000). Of course, some of these starting salaries are increased because the school is in the London weighting or fringe areas for salary purposes.
Interestingly, the school with the highest salary on offer recorded in this survey was in the national salary part of England. The highest recorded starting salary for a primary school headteacher in an advertisement was £93,424 in cash terms, or Leadership point 28 in scale point terms. The lowest salary on offer for a headteacher vacancy in the primary sector was £53,000 in cash terms or Point 1 on the Leadership Scale.
Non-cash benefits
Perhaps the most inclusive set of non-cash benefits offered in an advertisement for a headteacher can be found in a headteacher vacancy advertised by the Co-op Academy chain of schools. Their advertisement offered the following,’ Our employee benefits package includes:’
You’ll get being a Co-op member, you’ll get a Co-op colleague discount card. This gives you a 10% discount in our Co-op Food stores.
Co-operative flexible benefits (discounted line rental and broadband package, family care advice and cycle to work scheme)
Discounted gym membership and leisure activities which includes discounts on Merlin Entertainments (Sea Life, Legoland etc), Virgin Experience Days, SuperBreak and many more!
Co-operative Credit Union: save directly from your salary and receive a competitive dividend. Borrowers can benefit from very competitive interest rates & terms (in comparison with other high street lenders)
Co-op Funeralcare benefit
Season ticket and rental deposit loans
Hopefully, at least one of those benefits will be of no interest to candidates.
Another school offered the following non-cash benefits
access to a private health insurance scheme
a relocation package (subject to eligibility)
a daily lunch allowance for use in the school restaurant
access to our exclusive Benefits Hub.
a cycle to work scheme
a confidential employee assistance service
use of on-site fitness suite
an eye care voucher scheme
flu vaccination vouchers (subject to eligibility)
While a special school offered a mixture of expected benefits, plus a few others:
Competitive salary
Fully funded CPD, mentoring & coaching
A trust-wide commitment to wellbeing, including paid wellbeing days, and free on-site parking
Flexible working options
Access to an employee assistance programme
Teachers’ Pension Scheme
Employee referral scheme (earn up to £500 for successful referrals)
Highly resourced classrooms, small class sizes and access to multidisciplinary teams
A strong safeguarding and therapeutic culture
A London primary school offered the following as benefits
A commitment to supporting a healthy work/life balance
A happy, supportive and friendly environment where we work effectively as a team
Children who are eager to learn, committed staff, governors, parents and carers
Inspiring curriculum enrichment opportunities because of our exciting location close to central London and Spitalfields City Farm
Surprisingly, there were not as many references to tax free relocation allowances in the advertisements as I might have expected.
Conclusion
This survey of headteacher vacancies recorded between August 2025 and Christmas 2025 follows in the tradition of such surveys first started by the author over 40 years ago, in the mid-1980s, and continued until July 2022.
Data has been recorded for more than 400 headteacher vacancies advertised between August 2025 and Christmas 2025. The vacancies were advertised on either the DfE vacancy site or in some cases the ‘tes’ website.
While most schools appear to be successful in recruiting a new headteacher, those that advertised their vacancy in September may have had less success than those schools advertising during the rest of the autumn. However, final re-advertisement rates for vacancies across the autumn won’t be clear until early in 2026, so this point cannot yet be confirmed.
Nevertheless, as in past surveys, it is clear that some schools are finding recruiting a new headteacher more of a challenge than other schools. Two types of school: special schools and schools operated by the Roman Catholic church, both had above average levels of re-advertisements in this survey. I
In the case of two special schools, these schools have been recorded as having placed two re-advertisements for their vacancy, in addition to their first advertisement. Hopefully, these schools will be successful with their third advertisement.
The problems recruiting staff for special schools is often overlooked when the SEND crisis is discussed, and deserves more attention from policymakers.
A significant number of secondary schools now offer starting salaries for their headteacher vacancy of more than £100,000. Starting salaries for some large primary schools are less than £10,000 away from a six-figure starting salary.
Schools now regularly offer a range of non-cash benefits in their advertisements, but one that might have best left out of their advertisement by the Co-op multi academy trust is that of ‘a Co-op Funeral care benefit’. Hopefully, it is not one the incoming headteacher would be expected to need.
December used to be a quiet month for headteacher recruitment when advertisements appear in the press. Nowadays, with on-line advertising, it has become a much busier month for new vacancies to be advertised.
Presumably, schools hope candidates interested in a headship will surf the net between Christmas and the New Year for a new job. However, some schools still have hedged their bets with closing dates not until February 2026. Such late closing dates risk those schools’ losing candidates to schools that are fleeter of foot in their recruitment process.
On the other hand, some schools advertise for no more than a week between vacancy posted and the closing date. Does this suggest an internal candidate being favoured?
In a normal year, about 2,000 headteacher vacancies and re-advertisements might be recorded, so it will be interesting to see how 2026 pans out and the total number of vacancies advertised for the 2025-26 school year.
I look forward to writing the report on 2026 next December
Has the funding of SEND just become even more complicated for 2026-27? Under the arrangements announced by the DfE, cash has moved from the High Needs Block to other funding streams within the Dedicated Schools Grant. Dedicated schools grant (DSG): 2026 to 2027 – GOV.UK
Now I am no expert in schools funding, and the labyrinthine calculations employed by the DfE in deciding both the size of the cake and its distribution. However, it does seem as if all local authorities will see their High Needs Block funding stream reduced in 2026-27 when compared with 2025-26. As seem usual, some London boroughs have been less affected by the change than other upper tier authorities, with 10 of the 20 local authorities with the smallest percentage decrease being London boroughs. There are no London boroughs within the top 20 authorities with the largest percentage reductions, with the highest ranked London borough coming in at 23rd place.
Oxfordshire, where I served as the Cabinet member until May’s elections, has seen a decline of 18.75% in its High Needs block. That decline ranks it in the top 25 local authorities for the largest reductions in their High Needs Block. Hopefully, the cash has been distributed to schools, but the Schools Block for the County has also reduced, by around £5 million – effectively a standstill. No doubt the reduction is due to falling pupil numbers on a formula that is heavily driven by pupil numbers. The implications for schools faced with falling rolls was discussed in my blog post How might a school react to falling rolls? | John Howson
What does the DfE say about the High Needs block changes?
16. As the existing SEND system will continue for 2026 to 2027, the Department’s assessment is that limiting the funding in this way will not necessarily translate into negative impacts on children and young people with SEND and will not mean that we see negative equalities impacts. This is because the requirements on local authorities to secure provision to meet the needs of children and young people with SEND will remain in place, and local authorities must meet these requirements. The consequent budget pressures will therefore lead to accruing DSG deficits rather than having a negative impact on SEND provision.
And 17.We recognise that the size of deficits that some local authorities may accrue while the statutory override is in place may not be manageable with local resources alone, and will bring forward arrangements to assist with them as part of broader SEND reform plans, as explained in the Government’s provisional local government finance settlement document. Given that local authorities will continue to be protected from the adverse impact of those deficits through the so-called “statutory override”, and because we are seeking to protect school level allocations of high needs funding through the conditions of grant attached to the DSG, we do not envisage any adverse impact on those children and young people with protected characteristics, including those with disabilities. The national funding formula for schools and high needs 26-27
Of course, this assumes that the cash channelled through the Schools Block of the DSG is actually spent on SEND by schools, and accounted for as such in academy and MAT budgets. I am sure that will be the case.
Still, those special schools that see the base funding per pupil stuck at £10,000 for another year will no doubt wonder what has happened to inflation accounting.
All we can hope for is that it won’t be too long before the SEND reforms are announced. However, with consultation session running into 2026, it is difficult to see how SEND reforms and local government reorganisation won’t become mixed up together, with who knows what results. Perhaps the new arrangements announced for Surrey might give an indication. Hopefully, the fact that West Northamptonshire has the largest reduction in the High Needs Block of any upper tier authority (25%+) is due to its past history, not its present resourcing.
In January 2025, I penned a list of suggested amendments to the Schools Bill going through parliament. Well, the Bill is still going, and we still don’t know the outcome for SEND. But what of my other suggestions – listed below? Some, such as reducing the number of MATs has recently gained credibility on platforms such as LinkedIn. The idea of on-line schools has also gained attention as their use by ‘home schoolers’ increases.
The other suggestions have not yet been taken u, although a Select Committee at Westminster did discuss home to school transport in their session yesterday.
I still stand by all these suggestions made in this press release.
Time for radical action
Long-time education campaigner and recruitment authority, John Howson, calls upon the government to be more radical in its approach to education and schools.
My suggestions included
Academies
Some serious amalgamations might reduce overhead costs. Could each LA area have no more than 5 MATs (1 each for CoE; RC, special schools and 2 for all other primary and secondary schools).
How much would that save in salary costs of senior staff? Would this release cash for teaching and learning?
I also suggested a new on-line school for all children missing education because they don’t have a school place along with some other important changes.
All pupils on a school roll
(i) All young people not in school, and between the ages of 5 and 16, and not registered either as home educated young people or with a registered private provider on the list of DfE approved schools, must be registered with a maintained on-line school,
Notes
As the DfE accredits on-line private provision it should be able to create a category of on-line maintained school. This would allow the education of all state-funded young people to be regulated and inspected. It would end the practice of EOTAS (education other than at school) prescribed by s61 of the 2014 Education Act.
It would also allow for children moving into an area mid-year to immediately be placed on the roll of this school pending placement in a mainstream or special school. Many pupils with EHCPs transferring mid-year cannot be allocated a place in a special school because there are insufficient places. This would allow for oversight of their education by the local authority pending a placement. In a local authority such as Oxfordshire, there may be as many as 200+ pupils waiting for a school place as the school-year progresses.
This would also assist those children forced to free home at short notice due to domestic abuse. At present, they leave everything behind and it cannot be forwarded in case it reveals the location of the refuge or other accommodation. This on-line school would provide registration without revealing a location where pupil’s work could be forwarded and education continued until the situation was resolved.
Those children in years 10 and 11 offered a part-time place at an FE college where the school doesn’t consent that are currently transferred to elective home education to allow funding to be agreed could also be transferred to the roll of this school.
Free school transport extended to 18 to match ‘learning leaving age’.
(i) In Schedule 35B of the 1996 education Act replace ‘of compulsory school age’ with ‘Eighteen’.
(ii) The provision free transport for pupils beyond of compulsory school age and up to the end of the school year in which the child attains 18 will only apply where the child received free travel before the of the compulsory school age and remains at the same school.
(iii) Where the school a child attended up to the end of the compulsory school age does not provide post-16 education, transport will be provided free to the nearest post-16 education provision operating under schools’ regulation or the nearest Sixth Form College operating under Further Education regulations.
(iv) Where a child transfers to a college or other setting operating under Further Education regulations that is not a Sixth Form College, the college will have a duty to provide, either free transport or make other suitable arrangements in a situation where the young person would have met the conditions for free transport had they remained in the school they attended until the end of their compulsory school age, up to the end of the academic year where the child reaches the age of 18.
(v) Within the boundary of the London boroughs, school transport will be the responsibility of Transport or London. In combined Authorities with a mayor, the provision of school transport may be either a local authority ort a mayoral function by agreement. Where there is no agreement, the local authority will be responsible for any transport.
(vi) The responsible body, either a local authority or the mayor, must produce an annual home to school transport authority for the guidance of parents and other interested in the provision of home to school transport.
Note
This clause is to bring the transport arrangements into line with the learning leaving age of 18
Ending of selective education being treated as parental choice for transport decisions
(i) Where a local authority or other body responsibly for state funded secondary school education between the ages of 11 and 18 requires the passing of some form of selection for admittance to a school, regardless of whether the section process is administered by the school, a local authority or any other body, then a child admitted to their nearest selective school, or the nearest school with an available place, will be eligible for free transport up to age 18 while they remain on roll of the school, if they are an eligible child within Schedule 35B of the 1996 education Act.
Note
This clause prevents Kent and other LA with selective schools from regarding selective schools as a parental choice and, as a consequence, not providing free transport to children living more than 3 miles from the selective school.
Provision of sufficient teacher numbers in all subjects and all areas.
(i) Local authorities are encouraged to work with multi-academy trusts, dioceses and other promoters of schools to ensure a sufficient supply of suitable qualified teachers to ensure the delivery of the curriculum in such schools.
(ii) Where no other provision exists, local authorities may establish and operate initial teacher training provision, as an approved provider by the Department for Education.
(iii) Local authorities will produce an annual report to Council on the adequacy of staffing of schools within the authority.
(iv) It shall be the duty of schools to cooperate with the local authority in providing such information as required by the local authority for the production of an annual report on the staffing of schools within the authority.
Note
With increasing teacher shortages, it is necessary to ensure a sufficient number of teachers at a local level. This clause provides for local authorities to offer initial teacher education where insufficient places are available locally in some or all phases and subjects taught by schools.
Removal of right for MATs to ‘pool’ balances of schools within the MAT in annual accounts
(i) When presenting their annual accounts, a mutli-academy trust must show the balances for each individual school in the account and must not ‘pool’ reserves into a single figure for the trust.
(ii) The DfE shall publish each year a list of the salaries of all staff in academies and academy trusts earning more than £100,000 alongside the salary of the DCS for the same area where the academy or MAT are located.
Note
This clause seeks to ensure that funds allocated to schools are spent at that school and not transferred to another school, and especially not to be used by schools in different local authority areas. The second part requires the DfE to collate information that is in MAT or academy annual accounts. but DfE should provide the data as part of their statistical information to the sector.
Schools Forum
(i) The Cabinet Member or Committee Chair in a Committee system of local government responsible for supporting schools with the DSG and for the central block shall be a voting member of the Schools Forum. No substitute shall be allowed.
Note
This put the LA representative with control of EYFS and HNB funding on the same level of engagements as schools and others in respect of membership of a schools forum and end the anomaly of being permitted to be a member, but not to vote.
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.
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
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.
Page 69 of the report contains the following paragraph.
‘Teachers may enter a leadership grade more than one step above their current grade or may enter a leadership grade after being outside the system. These non-sequential promotions make up a significant minority of promotions. In primaries schools, for example, for every 100 senior leaders in 2016 who were heads in 2020, 12 classroom teachers, 12 middle leaders and 11 system entrants also became heads. In secondary schools, for every 100 senior leaders from 2016 who were heads in 2020, 3 classroom teachers, 5 middle leaders and 5 system entrants also became heads. Non-sequential promotions appear to be more common in primary schools, where leadership roles are more limited and ‘linear’ progression may be more difficult.’
Interestingly no mention is made in the text of the position in special schools, a disturbing oversight in view of the current concerns about SEND.
Following on from the text there is a histogram of ‘The Grade occupied by 2020 heads in 2016, split by school phase in 2020, in terms of FTE’.
Grade
Primary
Secondary
Special
Head
64
52
52
Senior Leader
26
39
32
Middle Leader
3
1
4
Classroom Teacher
3
1
3
System Entrant
3
6
9
There is no mention in the text of the fact that in many small primary schools there may be no senior leader, so any internal appointment would inevitably come from either a middle leader or classroom teacher.
What is interesting is the fact that almost one in ten headteachers in special schools in 2020 were system entrants in 2016. Where did these entrants come from, were they from special schools outside the state sector or did they bring other expertise to the post of headteacher.
How long does it take to become a headteacher?
In view of the fact that most headteachers seem to be appointed as a result of ‘linear’ progression through the different grades, especially in secondary schools, how long does it take to reach headship?
Is there an age or length of service by which, if a teacher has not reached assistant head grade, they unlikely to ever make it to a headship? If so, do mature entrants that become teachers after the age of thirty face a promotion ceiling in their careers? Is the position different in primary schools, with their flatter leadership teams, than in secondary schools with assistant, deputy and headteachers roles, often now overseen by an executive head.
The DfE research showed that in 2010, headteachers had a median of 27 years since qualification, and that this reduced to 23 years in 2016 and then rose slightly to 24 years in 2020. The median years of experience of senior leaders reduced from 18 years in 2010 to 17years in 2014 where it remained until 2020. The reduction between the upper quartiles for years since qualification was greatest for senior leaders, 24 years since qualification in 2020 compared with 30 years in 2010. There was virtually no change in the lower quartile between 2010 and 2020, for example, this was 13 years since qualification for senior leaders in both 2010 and 2020.
As this data covers both primary and secondary schools, it is difficult to know whether promotion is faster in the smaller primary schools, if you are lucky with turnover, that in large secondary schools with many more layers of leadership. Clearly, some mature entrants achieve headship, but the message must be that if you want promotion as a mature entrant, start your journey quickly and use the skills you have brought to the profession from your former career. A decade ago, I wrote this blog about the career of Mrs Clarke who went from volunteer to headteacher in the same school. Congratulations Mrs Clarke | John Howson
Sadly, the research is silent about entrants from different subject backgrounds. Do historians and geographers, generally joining smaller department, find progress to a headship easier than teachers of English and mathematics where there may be several grades of middle leadership within the department?
We should encourage mature entrants, but make it clear that those joining after the age of thirty may find career progression more of a challenge, especially where governing bodies value length of service rather than skills and expertise for the role. No doubt MATs with more professionals involved in promotion decisions will be more open to those entering teaching later in life.
John Howson 