Classroom teacher turnover in London needs watching

Historically, the turnover rate for classroom teachers in London has tended to be higher than elsewhere in England

YearInner LondonOuter London
2016/1714.9%12.5%
2017/1813.1%11.9%
2018/1912.8%11.4%
2019/209.9%8.4%
2020/2111.1%9.6%
2021/2212.8%11.1%
2022/2312.3%10.7%
2023/2412.5%10.7%

Source DfE evidence to STRB October 2025 Data annex

In 2016/17, turnover for classroom teachers in the Inner London boroughs reached 14.9%, or around one in seven classroom teachers either leaving the profession or moving school. Three years later, in the year where covid disrupted the summer term, turnover rates dropped below 10% for the only time in the last eight years. Once the pandemic subsided, turnover quickly returned to over 12%, or one in eight teachers.

In Outer London turnover rates have followed a similar pattern to those in Inner London, but a couple of percentage points lower than in the Inner London boroughs.

By way of contrast, in the North East, during 2023/24 turnover for classroom teachers was just 7.7%, some 4.8% lower than in Inner London schools.

Leaving aside the two years where covid affected the recruitment round (2019/20 and 2020/21), the national turnover rate for all levels of posts (classroom, leadership and headship) has generally been between 9-10%, but has been falling. In 2023/24 it was 9% compared with 10.6% in 2016/17.

Rates of turnover for assistant head and deputy heads probably reflect demand side issues more than what is happening on the supply side. When school rolls are rising, new schools may be created increasing demand: falling rolls may mean posts are cutback, and demand reduced, so less turnover.

Headship turnover is very closely linked to the age profile of headteachers. When a cohort of new younger headteachers has replaced a generation that has retired, turnover is likely to fall for a few years. However, turnover tends to be within a narrow range of between 9.5-10.5% per year. There is now no discernible London effect on headteacher turnover, as there used to be many years ago when headteacher salaries were more tightly controlled.

Might we now be entering a period of stability, with lower turnover rates for classroom teachers , especially should the possible upheaval in the graduate job market created by the AI revolution coincide with the period of stable rolls in the secondary secto,r and falling rolls in the primary sector?

YearPrimarySecondarySTEM subjectsNon-STEMAll Teachers
2016/1786.3583.1%81.2%84.5%84.9%
2023/2490.0%89.4%88.0%90.2% 89/7%

The table taken from various tables in the DfE evidence to the STRB shows a consistent trend of improved retention for teachers at the end of the first year of service. However, the same tables show that there is still a job to be done to retain these teachers in larger numbers beyond their first few years of service. The government needs to be aware that teaching is now a global career, and teachers from England can easily find work overseas.

Overseas teachers in England. More or less?

How far have teachers from outside the United Kingdom helped keep schools in England staffed during the period when there were teacher shortages? Although it takes a great deal of research to know what and where these teachers are working in England, the DfE in its evidence to the STRB (Teachers Pay Body) did provide some interesting data about changes in numbers of these teachers by their country of origin, between the 2015/16 and 2023/24 November teacher census returns. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evidence-to-the-strb-2026-pay-award-for-teachers-and-leaders data annex

For the purpose of this blog, countries have been divided into three groups: EEA – effectively all of Europe; countries with 20th century links to the United Kingdon, either as current Commonwealth countries or for other historical reasons, and countries that do not fit into either of the two other groups.

Taking the EEA countries first. It might be expected that post-BREXIT the numbers their had reduced. This is true for some countries, including  France and Germany, and, more interestingly, for the Irish Republic, where there was a loss of more than 900 teachers between 2015/16 census and the 2023/34 census.

EEA2015/162023/24difference
France22102085-125
Germany645605-40
Ireland35202595-925
Netherlands2252250
Sweden9590-5
-1095

Elsewhere in the EEA list of countries, there were more teachers in 2023/24 than in 2015/16

EEA2015/162023/24difference
Austria60600
Belgium951005
Bulgaria100205105
Czech Republic7510025
Denmark65650
Finland60600
Greece260590330
Hungary17527095
Italy485850365
Malta30300
Norway253510
Other EEA153015
Poland11551540385
Portugal255430175
Republic of Croatia406020
Republic of Latvia458035
Republic of Lithuania11016050
Romania350740390
Slovak Republic15018030
Slovenia, Republic406020
Spain12552100845
Switzerland50555
2905

There were nearly 2,000 more EEA teachers in England in 2023/24 according to these numbers. Greece, Italy and Poland between them accounting for nearly half the increase in EEA teacher numbers, and Spain alone, a further 40% of the total.

For countries with historic links to the United Kingdom there has been a marked decline in teachers from Australia, New Zealand and Canada recorded in the DfE census, and increase in teachers from Jamaica, some countries in Africa, and from the Indian sub-continent.

LINKS TO UK2015/162023/24difference
Australia16851290-395
Canada15801330-250
Guyana6045-15
New Zealand745480-265
Sierra Leone8575-10
Trinidad & Tobago10595-10
-945

Jamaica, India and Pakistan and South Africa together account for the bulk of the increase in teachers from this group of countries.

LINKS TO UK2015/162023/24difference
Bangladesh10011515
Cyprus559540
Ghana515665150
India8651615750
Jamaica7451550805
Kenya14516015
Malaysia7510025
Mauritius11513520
Nigeria580860280
Pakistan280560280
South Africa15751815240
Sri Lanka11016555
Uganda709020
Zimbabwe37545075
2770

Teacher numbers from other countries not in the above two groups tend to be small in number.

Israel was the only country with fewer teachers, down from 60 to 55; a loss of just five teachers.

ROW2015/162023/24difference
Algeria559035
Brazil6012565
Cameroon709020
China145315170
Colombia559540
Iran13016030
Morocco558530
Other ROW9551540585
Russia8012040
Turkey10017070
Ukraine359560
USA845985140
1285

China and the USA were the only two countries providing more than 100 teachers during the period between 2015/16 and 2023/24.

As Michael Gove provided QTS to teachers trained in the USA over a decade ago, the number of teachers from the USA seems surprisingly small. However, it may not include those teaching in international schools in England that are part of the private sector.  

While it is clear that a substantially more ‘overseas’ teachers were recorded in the 2023/24 census than in the 2015/26 census, their numbers alone would not have been enough to have solved the teacher supply crisis. Might they have made a difference to the percentage of teachers from some ethnic groups?

DfE confirms secondary ITT shortfall in evidence to STRB

The DfE’s evidence to the STRB (pay review body for teachers) contains some useful information about the state of the teaching profess, and changes over the past decade and a half since the DfE moved the teacher census from January to November each year. Much has remained the same, across the whole time period. But, before delving into the past, it is worth looking at the table for offers on secondary subjects for 2025 that I created for an earlier post, but now with the data from Table FD4-FD6 of the STRB evidence Evidence to the STRB: 2026 pay award for teachers and leaders – GOV.UK

Interestingly, the DfE doesn’t seem to have included the offers against targets that might have help the STRB to see where shortfalls are likely once the ITT census is published in December.

SubjectTarget2025/26% increase Sept on Juneaccepted Sept 25 FD6 DfE to STRBover/under target
Total Secondary19,27026%16843-2,427
Primary7,65034%98802,230
Chemistry73049%909179
Biology98536%1397412
Mathematics2,30035%2617317
Design & Technology96533%678-287
Art & Design68033%902222
Geography93533%98146
Classics6032%42-18
English1,95031%1760-190
Drama62030%273-347
Business Studies90029%235-665
Music56528%343-222
Religious Education78028%418-362
Others2,52025%360-2,160
History79023%936146
Modern Languages1,46021%1428-32
Physics1,41019%1313-97
Physical Education72517%1491766
Computing8955%761-134

As I suggested in my previous post, despite the renewed attraction of teaching for new graduates, there are still some subjects that won’t meet their target. Interestingly, the target for recruiting primary teachers is likely to be massively exceeded this year. Whether all those trainees will find jobs next summer is an interesting question.

With the continued shortfall against targets, where do schools find their staff from, and are they appropriately qualified? The answer to the second part of the question seems to be it depends on whether the school is in Pupil Premium decile 1 or decile 10. (Table D7) The data in this table suggests that schools in decline 1 have higher teacher wastage rates; higher percentages of unqualified teachers; higher percentages of teachers with less experience of teaching and a higher percentage of lesson taught by teachers not seen as qualified in the subject they are teaching. None of this is very surprising, but if the government wants to do something to level up outcomes, then they should pay attention to these percentages.

As to where schools find their teachers to ensure they are fully staffed if there are shortfalls in the numbers emerging from training, there has been a shift in the number of teachers coming from the old dominions, and an increase in those from other members of the Commonwealth. I will discuss these changes in more detail in another blog, as well as trends in recruitment for Europe.

Finally, it is worth noting that the secondary school teacher population expressed as Full Time equivalents (FTEs) barely changed between November 2010 and November 2020, increasing by just 265 FTEs, from 218,736 to 219,001. By contrast, the primary teacher FTEs in the same period increased from 196,258 to 215,632 by November 2024, although this was below the 225,537 FTEs recorded in November 2020, before pupil numbers began to fall.

Pay your bus fare to learn

The government has responded to the House of Commons Select Committee report of earlier this year about bus services in England. I am sad to see that not only will free transport not be available nationally for those under the age of 22, but the government doesn’t even seem prepared to concede that there is an anomaly regarding free transport to school or college for those aged between 16-18.Buses connecting communities: Government Response

Recommendation 15

The Department’s review of the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme should consider piloting a free bus pass for under-22s, valid for travel at any time of day. This would support access to work and skills opportunities for younger people and help embed long-term public transport use.

Response from the government 

The Government recognises the benefits that free travel for under-22s could bring. However, we are operating in a challenging fiscal environment and the future funding for bus services has already been allocated through the Spending Review, with no funding available for such a scheme. Expanding concessionary travel would therefore be unaffordable within this SR period without diverting funding away from maintaining current bus service levels.

I read the dead hand of HM Treasury here. Perhaps the Select Committee could also have sent the recommendation to the Department for Education for their views, although I suspect the answer would be the same. Local authorities serving rural areas cannot afford to subsidise 16-18 travel as might be the case in the large urban areas.

My previous post showed how out of line education in Oxfordshire is compared with other key indicators for the districts within the county. Should the NHS pay more to support children with SEND? | John Howson This is a missed opportunity by the government to improve education for those in rural areas living in poverty. Sadly, it seems like a missed chance. Both a lack of ambition and a lack of resources seem to be the reasons.

Should the NHS pay more to support children with SEND?

The new index of deprivation, published today by the government, contains an important message about affluent areas such as Oxfordshire.  English indices of deprivation 2025: statistical release – GOV.UK

Oxfordshire ranks highly on three of the four areas I looked at, and especially so on Health and Employment, where the lowest rankings are 65/296 in health and 36/296 in employment, and the highest 8/296 in health and 4/296 in employment.

District CouncilEducationHealthCrimeEmployment
South Oxfordshire258288287292
Vale of White Horse235284283275
West Oxfordshire233279285263
Cherwell155252231260
City of Oxford156231123262
District CouncilEducationHealthCrimeEmployment
South Oxfordshire38894
Vale of White Horse61121321
West Oxfordshire63171133
Cherwell141446536
City of Oxford1406517334

However, the ranking for both Cherwell and City of Oxford districts for education, at 141 and 140/296 compare badly with the ranking elsewhere in the county. Overall, the education ranks are still the lowest ranking scores for all districts, except for the City of Oxford, where the ranking for crime is 173/296, over a hundred places lower than any other district in the county.

The comparison between the education rankings and the health rankings raises an interesting question. Why is education doing so badly in Oxfordshire, especially in the urban areas of Oxford and Banbury? It is difficult to blame the local authority, as all but one of the secondary schools and many primary schools are academies and part of MATs.

Perhaps the formula for education funding is so linked to the county’s rank across all indices that the current funding formula for schools cannot compensate for the needs of Oxfordshire children living in its most deprived communities.

It is clear that there are issues nationally with the formula for the High Needs Block that funds SEND, but again does Oxfordshire lose out more than other areas? After all, it schools are generally highly regarded by ofsted; it has two world class universities, and leading science and technology companies driving the economy.

On the SEND issues, one question is whether the NHS is pulling its weight on supporting children with SEND? Assuming that the overall ranking for the county is not going to see any government be more generous to Oxfordshire with regard to funding, however the present county may be configured post local government reorganisation, then there must be a strong case to require the NHS to spend more resources on supporting children with special needs even if its overall ranking slips a few places as a result. This would reduce the need for the county, and the schools within the county, having to prop up spending on SEND that should really come from the health budget.  

There is no doubt Oxfordshire is not a county with a high degree of deprivation, but what deprivation there is can be concentrated in a few wards in the urban areas abut also spread out across the rural parts of the county. The former is easy to identify, the latter more of a challenge. Both need more funding for education.

Why ’V’ Levels are important for Labour

Alongside her campaign to become deputy leader of the Labour Party, the Secretary of State for Education has found time today to announce a new post-16 set of qualifications, called ‘V’ Levels, presumably to bring order to the landscape of such qualifications that she sees as confusing.

As I write this blog, the exact details of the new qualification to sit alongside ‘A’ & ‘T’ Levels has not yet been announced to the House of Commons, so we don’t yet know about the nature and format of ‘V’ Levels in detail.

However, as the following table shows, they may be important to many Labour Party members fighting non-metropolitan seats in the north of England, The Midlands and the South West region.

RegionNumber of pupils completing key stage 4Sustained education, employment & apprenticeshipsSustained education destinationSustained apprenticeshipsSustained employment destination
North East26,93191.581.74.65.2
South West53,11193.984.14.75.0
Yorkshire and The Humber58,91892.082.84.34.9
North West79,55092.183.34.14.7
East Midlands50,00292.684.24.24.2
East of England64,44594.287.42.74.1
West Midlands64,56592.485.23.24.0
South East90,64994.387.72.64.0
London84,42794.692.00.91.7
Outer London55,92194.892.01.01.7
Inner London28,50694.191.90.61.5

The data is for 2023 and was published last week by the DfE as Destinations of key stage 4 and 5 students: 2024 – GOV.UK although it doesn’t seem to contain the 2024 data yet.

London students, and especially those in inner London Key Stage providers seem overwhelmingly to remain in a sustained education institution, albeit not necessarily the institution where they undertook their Key Stage 4 courses. Less than 1% of inner London students proceeded to a sustained apprenticeship. Obviously, there is more room for such apprenticeships to be offered to these pupils. By contrast, the further away from London the region, the more likely that over 4% of students will proceed to apprenticeships.  

The pattern for employment, not regarded by previous government as a key option after the raising unofficially of the learning leaving age to eighteen, mirrors that of apprenticeships, with higher rates the further away from London students are located. Indeed, London is something of an outlier in respect of employment rates for this group, following the pattern expected after the raising f the school leaving age.

Missing for the table are the NEETS – those not in any category in the table. Will ‘V’ Level qualifications help reduce this number, and might it help if such qualifications started at 14, the age when many NEETS fall out of interest in schooling? I was going to write, ‘fall out of love’, but many, I suspect, were never actually in love with schooling.

Anyway, I will be interesting to see whether the announcement helps the Secretary of State’s own election campaign and, if so, whether she will be in place to take the initiative forward?

Funding SEND – is the current system fair?

The DfE has just published data that sets the context for the expected White Paper, due this autumn. Looking at the data on the High Needs Block that has been the basic building block for the funding of SEND (special needs and disabilities), I can see why there must have been some very intense discussions between the DfE and the Treasury. Section 251: 2025 to 2026 – GOV.UK

The data on individual special school funding only refers to maintained schools where local authorities are responsible for oversight of the budgets. It would be really helpful to see similar ‘cost per place’ data for academy special schools and alternative provision, including Pupil Referral Units, even though they have a different financial year to maintained schools.    

The data for the municipal financial year of 2025-26 for Oxfordshire was set while I was still the cabinet member for Children’s Services, including maintained schools. The data on funding per place for the three maintained special schools in Oxfordshire is illuminating. There is a total of 522 such schools in England listed in the data. The most expensive costs £8.2 million per place, and judging by its website does a great job educating some very challenged young people from the start of their education journey to adulthood.

Now special schools come in many different forms with clearly different funding needs. A school for pupils with hearing loss and no other disability might need less funding per place than a school for non-verbal young people with physical disabilities in addition

The three Oxfordshire maintained schools were placed 74th, 155th and 170th in the list of 522 schools, with funding per place ranging from £840,000 to £1,2 million. Schools with £2,000,000 per place of more were ranked 373 of higher in the list. Does this mean that Oxfordshire is efficient or under-funded compared with some other local areas? I do wonder.

Even allowing for issues such as higher salary costs in London and surrounding areas, the range of cost per place for similar types of school seems worth looking into more closely, and that is where the academy special schools’ data would be useful in order to allow full consideration of cost per place by local government areas.

The current High Needs block distribution formula clearly isn’t working, and I wonder whether equity of funding is an issue for the team putting together the White Paper? How does anyone judge what is fair in funding levels? Wiser heads than mine will know the answer to that question.

Of course, the other key funding issue for SEND, especially outside of the urban areas, is the cost of transport. The Section 251 budget statement for planned expenditure during 2025-26 by Oxfordshire at Line 175092 of the DfE’s spreadsheet suggests expected spending on SEND transport, including for post-16 students of around f£26.4 million. This compares with expected home to school transport costs of just under £21 million for all other pupils entitled to fee transport.

How will the White Paper deal with this cost? Hopefully, it will recognise that such costs should be met by government up to age 18 or even 19 for all such pupils, and not be discretionary beyond age 16. Could a government funded driver scheme for unemployed adults with a driving licence remove the profit element from such expenditure or would the administration costs be more than the saving made by not using private sector firms?

These are not easy issues to grapple with, but starting with some values about the needs of children with SEND would be a good basis for the outcomes in the White Paper. However, as my earlier analysis of Pupil Teacher Ratios demonstrated, funding and values are not common cause in government spending, regardless of the political persuasion of the government in power. Oxford Teacher Services -publications

I don’t want knife arches in schools

The BBC has conducted a survey of knife crime in schools, using Freedom of Information data from police forces. Children as young as four taking knives into school, BBC finds – BBC News

As regular readers of the blog know, this is a topic of personal interest to me because of what I experienced as a teacher nearly 50 years ago. Knife crime: do we need mandatory sentences? | John Howson

I am sorry for the mother whose son was stabbed to death in school by another pupil, that death, as any death anywhere, is a matter of shame on society.

However, I think that the general secretary of ASCL quoted in the BBC piece has it about right.

The Association of Schools and College Leaders says while it is relatively rare for pupils to bring knives into schools, it would like to see greater efforts across society to tackle the issue.

“More than a decade of cuts to community policing and youth outreach programmes has meant school leaders, too often, find themselves with little or no support,” says general secretary, Pepe Di’lasio.’

Cuts to youth services and too many images of knives in entertainment don’t help, as does a lack of teachers serving in high-risk schools long enough to build relationships with pupils.

It is interesting that the academy trust mentioned by the BBC as introducing metal detection arches is located in the West Midlands. The police in that area, according to the BBC, report much higher levels of knife crime incidents in education establishment than other police forces, so perhaps for now some form of detection is acceptable.

However, I would not want detection arches to become a permanent feature or school life. At some point society has to defuse such situations. Schools should not become like airports, after all rail and underground stations function without metal detectors, but not without incidents.

There needs to be a risk assessment, and the issue needs to be kept in proportion. In 2024, the BBC data showed an incidence of 21 knife offence in schools per 1,000,000 students. If there are 6 million students that’s 126 offences per year. I think that the expenditure on knife detecting arches could be better spent elsewhere, and such arches won’t protect students on school buses before they reach the school.

For those children below the age of criminal responsibility, any child with a knife is a matter for Children’s Services, and for parents to explain how their child could leave home with a knife.

Finally, I would ban knives and swords from shop window displays. Such display glorifies weapons, and have no place on our high streets.  

For those that want to know more about young people and knife crime this presentation by the youth Justice board from August 2025 is a useful introduction.  Knife Crime, Key Evidence and Insights, Aug 2025

According to the government, in the year ending March 2024, there were just over 3,200 knife or offensive weapon offences committed by children resulting in a caution or sentence, which is 6% fewer than the previous year but 20% greater than 10 years ago. This is the sixth consecutive year-on-year decrease.

In the latest year, the vast majority (99.7%) of knife or offensive weapon offences committed by children were possession offences and the remaining 0.1% were threatening with a knife or offensive weapon offences.

In the year ending March 2024, 61% of disposals given to children for a knife or offensive weapon offence were a community sentence. This proportion is broadly stable over the last 10 years.

The proportion of children sentenced to immediate custody was 7% in the last year, which is the same level it has been for the last three years. Youth Justice Statistics: 2023 to 2024 – GOV.UK

Labour’s determination to recruit new teachers doesn’t include music

‘Now, when I think back to my school days, when I think of the happy memories. It was all about the teachers I had along the way. 

The ones who helped me succeed are the ones who made me feel like I belonged. 

That’s why I am determined to help you recruit and retain more great teachers in your schools.  

And to encourage more people to get into the profession, what’s why we have set out today the new initial teacher training incentive. 

I want more great teachers in our schools, working their magic. 

And it really is magic – what they do, what you do. 

Don’t ever let anyone tell you otherwise. 

And I certainly won’t let anyone tell me otherwise. 

You have the wonderful power to transform lives. 

To give to children the knowledge and skills they need to succeed, not just in work, but in life too. 

Extract from Secretary of State for Education’s speech at RISE Attainment Conference.’ Education Secretary speech at RISE attainment conference – GOV.UK

With respect, Secretary of State, what about Music teachers? The bursary for the subject has been removed for those applying to train in 2026. This is despite the likelihood of the number of entrants to ITT courses this autumn not meeting the ITT target set by the DfE. With the cuts in music courses at universities, competition of the remaining graduates is likely to intensify as the arts sector continues to contribute to increasing the national wealth.

It is not as if missing the ITT target in music is something new.

ITT census% of target recruited
2019/2080
2020/21122
2021/2271
2022/2362
2023/2427
2024/2540
2025/2565

Source: DfE ITT censuses

Presumably, the DfE is hoping that the AI revolution that will remove many existing graduate entry level jobs, will create a similar situation to the covid pandemic that drove graduates back to choosing teaching as a career. Will this be true? Only if the universities are producing the same number of new graduates, since potential career changers may already be in jobs less threatened by AI?

The text of this 2024 article suggests that new graduates in music may be harder to find than in the past Full scale of university arts cuts emerges – Arts Professional

My message is simple, the bursary should not have been removed for music, and possibly other arts subjects as well. However, the DfE should monitor applications for September 2026 training and, if by February, they are showing a failure to meet the target again in 2026, then the bursary should be reintroduced.

By the way, I have a simple formula for monitoring applications against target that I used for over a decade when UCAS managed the ITT application process. I might start using it again when the 2026 applications are revealed each month.

My reason for picking on music for this post is that I have just been invited to take over the role of Chair of Oxfordshire’s Music Hub Board.

Is Labour making mistakes on ITT bursaries?

Yesterday, the government announced the bursaries for trainee graduate teachers and support for school training through the Post Graduate Apprenticeship route (PGTA). As might be expected, the subjects covered by these inducements to train as a teacher are mostly STEM subjects, plus some other subjects, but not the arts and humanities subjects, except for geography for some reason.

SubjectBursaryScholarship
Biology£5,000
Chemistry£29,000£31,000
Computing£29,000£31,000
Design and technology£20,000
Geography£5,000
Languages£20,000£22,000
(French, German and Spanish only)
Languages£20,000
(all other languages, including ancient languages)                          
Maths£29,000
Physics£29,000£31,000

Teacher training bursaries | Get Into Teaching GOV.UK

The bursaries are paid for by the government, and the scholarships mostly by the subject associations. While I can understand the government’s desire to increase training numbers up to target in these subjects, the list does raise two important questions about what seems like a continuation of the policy of the previous Conservative government.

Firstly, are these now the subjects where targets will not be met in 2025 when the ITT census is published in December. If there are other subjects not likely to meet their ITT target, why are they not included in the list?

I produced this table for an earlier blog, but it is worth repeating here.

SubjectTarget2025/26% increase Sept on Juneaccepted Sept 25over/under target
Total Secondary19,27026%16843-2,427
Primary7,65034%98802,230
Chemistry73049%909179
Biology98536%1397412
Mathematics2,30035%2617317
Design & Technology96533%678-287
Art & Design68033%902222
Geography93533%98146
Classics6032%42-18
English1,95031%1760-190
Drama62030%273-347
Business Studies90029%235-665
Music56528%343-222
Religious Education78028%418-362
Others2,52025%360-2,160
History79023%936146
Modern Languages1,46021%1428-32
Physics1,41019%1313-97
Physical Education72517%1491766
Computing8955%761-134

Why are subjects such business studies – a perennial ITT target failure – and music and religious education not included in the bursary list? Does a Labour government not believe these subjects are worth supporting?

The second issue is around whether there will be the jobs available for trainees recruited into training in September 2026, and entering the labour market in September 2027, if on a traditional course. The more the PGTA route is funded, the fewer advertised vacancies there may be if the schools convert PGTA trainees into qualified teachers doing the same job.

The government announcement contains no discussion about the labour market for teachers, and whether ITT trainees, faced with a secondary sector where pupil numbers will be at best flat, and at worst in decline, if the decline in the birthrate together with government policies on immigration or even the threat of them help to reduce the secondary school population.

From my perspective, this announcement like a sloppy piece of work by the DfE, in what could be a rapidly changing labour market, if the intention is to ensure all subjects receive sufficient new entrants into the labour market in 2026.

However, if there is a rapid decline in graduate level entry posts as a result of AI, then the government’s stance may be vindicated, even if says nothing about equality of opportunity.