Falling School Rolls: not just a London problem?

Over the next few years, schools across England will be forced to come to terms with falling pupil numbers. As I indicated in an earlier set of posts on this blog, falling rolls can either be managed by the market, through parental choice and selective school’s decisions on their capacity levels without recourse to other local schools, or can the reduction in numbers be managed through some form of innervation, either by the DfE or by some local body, such as a local authority or an elected Mayor.

How pressing is the problem for secondary schools at present? I have looked at a random selection of schools, almost all secondary schools, that have advertised so far in this autumn term of 2026 for a teacher with expertise in music. The usefulness of looking at music is it is a subject where any vacancy is unlikely to be covered by someone else already on the staff. This is because of the subject knowledge needed.

The data for the schools with vacancies has been compared with the DfE public database that contains columns for a school’s ‘number on roll’ and ‘school capacity’. It is not clear how often this data are updated, or when it refers to, but there don’t seem to have been any changes between the beginning of September and this week, so it may be reasonably recent.

The following table for the different regions of England reveals an interesting picture

LOCAL AUTHORITY REGION20%+ SPARE PLACES19%- 10% SPARE PLACES9% TO  5% SPARE PLACES5% SPARE PLACES TO 4% OVER CAPACITY5%+ OVER CAPACITYTOTAL
EAST ENGLAND102104
EAST MIDLANDS2233111
LONDON14211422
NORTH EAST010102
NORTH WEST021317
SOUTH EAST111036
SOUTH WEST2180011
WESTMIDLANDS12115
YORKS & HUMBER012025
ALL REGIONS81419201273

Of the 73 schools with a vacancy record – about just under 2% of secondary schools, so a reasonable opportunity sample – 41 already had more than 10% spare capacity; 20 had between 5% spare capacity and 5% over capacity, and might be regarded as working at capacity;  12 schools were more than 5% over capacity. Of this last grouping, three were selective schools, and another a highly regarded specialist school.  Seven of the 12 schools were either in London or the South East.

Of the schools with the most spare capacity, only one was in London, and the other seven were spread across five of the other regions, suggesting that parental choice might already be playing a significant part in how full to capacity certain school are even today.

Only two of the 22 schools with the most spare capacity are church schools: both are  Catholic schools. One Church of England school features in the list of most over-subscribed schools. That school is in London, and may have benefitted from a  closeness to the Elizabeth Line, and TfL’s generous transport policy for travel to and from school.

The real issues to come will be both protecting schools in rural areas that serve an area where closure would mean an excessively long journey for some pupils and ensuring all schools can offer what is regarded as the whole curriculum up to age 16. What minority subjects is it allowable for a school not to offer at Key Stage 4?

One thing is certain, many schools with falling rolls will not be recruiting because of their budgets already being under pressure. Might some schools already have dropped music, so not be included in this sample?

I hope that local politicians across England are now asking Scrutiny Committees to be looking into the position locally, and whether any action will be needed, and, if so, by whom?

Selective schools and falling rolls – Part 2 Do we need a national policy?

Do we need a national policy on how local areas deal with falling school rolls? If so, who should decide? Local authorities – democratically elected, but with little power over academies and voluntary schools? Regional Directors – covering wide areas, and with no democratic accountability? CEOs advising the Board of Governance of MATs – unelected in both cases? Mayors, where they exist, but what about where they don’t?

My preference is for democracy, so, as regular reads might expect, I vote for local authorities, assisted by a committee from the other groups. However, some of those might not want to take challenging decisions, so they might need some guidelines for the DfE and the Labour government for them to work within.

I have looked at the ‘capacity’ and ‘number on roll’ in three councils with selective schools (Slough, Medway and London Borough of Barnet). In all three of these authorities, capacity exceeds rolls. Generally. However, selective schools exceed capacity more than they have spare places. In non-selective schools the picture is more mixed.

In pupil place planning for the future, whoever takes the decisions, there are some questions to answer, based on the evidence of the data about school rolls from schools in these three authorities.

Have all-thorough schools worked?

Has the extension of faith schools beyond a few Christian denominations and Jewish schools after 1997 worked?

What do parents think of single-sex education these days?

Have new forms of academies and free schools flourished?

What part can parental choice play in a falling rolls scenario?

What is both any economic cost, and any educational cost associated with doing nothing?

A final question. Why does the DfE not have admissions policies for three schools across the authorities; two in one authority?

As these are all urban/suburban areas, transport costs don’t matter very much for most families. I will look at selective schools in rural areas later in another post.

It is interesting that the London borough has a smaller capacity gap than either of the other unitary councils. However, the total in all three authorities conceals a wide range of outcomes. I referred to this issue in my post Are dashboards useful? | John Howson where I made clear that just looking at totals is rarely good enough. Measures of central tendency also need to be considered.

The data in this post has used ‘capacity’ and ‘numbers on roll’. Reviewing authorities will also have primary transfer numbers, and group sizes for predictions of future transfer numbers for the next 5-7 years.

If a Scrutiny Committee of an upper tier authority hasn’t considered pupil place planning in the authority recently, then I would suggest they put it on the agenda for a spring meeting, and ask for a detailed paper, even if it means going into confidential session. Not to do so, won’t make the issue go away.

Finally, why did I choose these three authorities? They are in London and South East, where there are a significant number of selective schools, and, the authorities were of a size where I could handle the data. Selective schools and falling rolls | John Howson

 I might next look at three more diverse areas (The South West, West Midlands and East of England regions spring to mind).  

NEETS: the journey starts at six not sixteen

In my previous post, I looked at the PISA survey comments about teachers. I am sure that there is a degree of correlation between high-quality teaching on the one hand, and student outcomes at the end of each transition stage in a young person’s education journey on the other hand. Inputs affect outputs.

However, the equation is not as simple as that. For the most part, learners need to engage to succeed. I came across this interesting paragraph about NEETs, in a briefing note written by the Confederation of School Trusts.

‘The larger lesson is therefore that NEET should not principally be understood as a status to be

remedied after the event. It is better understood as the possible end-point of a progressive

weakening of the connections between a young person and the institutions that should carry

them from childhood into adult economic and civic life.’ Preventing young people from becoming NEET – 2026-09-01.pdf – Google Drive

While I am not a fan of academies, mainly because of the absence of local democratic involvement, it doesn’t mean that I don’t respect the work many within that sector undertake.

This briefing note is one example of what I think is a great summary of how the risk of becoming a NEET starts on day one of schooling. Along with Sir Nick Clegg when he was Deputy Prime Minister and concerned about progress of under-fives, I would also argue that the risk of a journey to becoming a NEET begins even earlier. It is interesting to re-read a blog post written more than a decade ago in January 2015.  Ending child illiteracy by 2025 | John Howson

The closure of Sure Start centres was, in retrospect, one of the worst decisions of the coalition government. Sadly, like the Academies Act 2010 that produced the ‘hell for leather’ race to academisation, I wonder if the Liberal Democrat part of the Coalition Government could, perhaps, have fought harder to prevent both outcomes.

My two current suggestions are: monitor absence from day one of school or nursery and identify where any undue amount of absence starts to affect the acquisition of the fundamental building blocks of learning to read, write (if still considered necessary) and learn the basics of numeracy.

The primary system of teacher and class-based progress allied to an aim of measuring outcomes by eleven and transfer to secondary school might be worth re-considering. What percentage of those that fall behind with the basics ever catch up? How successful are interventions and the use of support staff, or are many of them just childminding? Of course, both won’t have immediate results, but we have to do more than firefighting when someone reaches sixteen.

In one of my earliest posts on this blog, in 2013, Quality Assurance v Quality Control | John Howson I discussed the issue of how you deal with failure to reach an expected standard in terms of making cars. Some of those industrial techniques apply to the learning process. Don’t wait until measurement points to remediate, but diagnose where the block to progress is taking place and intervene effectively at that point.  NEETs mostly don’t want to be NEETs, and we need to find ways after 150 years of state education to ensure all that have the capability to success can do so.

The problem of ensuring enough jobs for all is someone ese’s problem. Let’s make sure the state school system no longer produces NEETs that are not capable of entering adult life and the workplace.  

Are London schools overfunded?

Let me be clear the answer is, of course they are not. However, as my previous post showed, there were significant differences in exclusion and suspension rates in the latest DfE data between many London boroughs and other local authorities across England. Do better funded schools exclude fewer pupils? Part 2 | John Howson with London borough having some of the lowest levels of both exclusions and suspensions.

This discrepancy between London and the rest of England, prompted me to explore the data at a regional level on two different factors: ethnicity and Free School Meals. At some point, it might be interesting to combine these two factors, but for now, they are treated as separate factors. This post deals with pupils eligible for Free School Meals. I hope, in a later post, to consider the data about ethnicity, where the are significant differences between different ethnic groups.

Firstly, here is the table for outcomes for entitle pupils for Free School Meals across primary, secondary and special school sectors.

Free School Meal – entitled pupils 2024/25 All school sectors

London stands out as the lowest rate for both exclusions and suspensions of any region in England. Permanent exclusions in the North East are more than four times higher than the rate in London, and even suspensions are more than four times higher than in the London region.

Of course, London schools may use other sanctions, such as in-school suspensions, but the differences do seem stark between the regions, with London schools using less than half the rate of suspensions of schools across any other region.    

In terms of pupils not entitled to Free School Meals, the differences between London and the rest of the regions are less stark.

Free School Meal – non-entitled pupils 2024/25 All school sectors

However, London still has a ‘suspension rate’ of less than half of that in the three regions with the highest rate of suspensions. Permanent exclusion rates for pupils not eligible for Free School Meals are generally very low across England, but, even so, London, along with the South East still had the lowest rate of permanent exclusions in 2024/25.

Free School Meal – non-entitled pupils 2024/25 Primary school sector

London doesn’t quite have the lowest permanent exclusions in the primary sector for pupils not entitled to Free School Meals: the rate in the south East is 0.01 better than in London. However, London does have the lowest rate for suspensions.

Free School Meal – entitled pupils 2024/25 Secondary school sector

Even with secondary school pupils entitled to Free School Meals, London has both the lowest rate of suspensions and of permanent exclusions o any region in England. Again, whether this is as a result other in-school measures, better staffing because of funding, or some other reasons isn’t discernible for the data.  

However, it will be interesting to consider the data for ‘ethnicity’ where London is one of the more diverse regions of England. This is because some London boroughs have low percentages of pupils on Free School Meals.

Does the funding of schools on a model of average salary funding model, with an additional London weighting in the National Funding Formula play any part in this data? For instance, does London employ more new teachers at below average salary rates.

Going forward, how will falling rolls affect the finances of schools in London and, hence, the possible rate of suspensions and exclusions in future years?

Headteacher: recruitment bonus – good value or not?

Following suggestions that the DfE might pay a £15,000 recruitment bonus/golden hello to encourage people to take the role of headteacher in a challenging school, I though I would look at the most recent data regarding schools failing to appoint a new headteacher at their first attempt.

The data covers 789 schools that have advertised for a headteacher between 1st August 2025 and the 20th February 2026 on their the DfE vacancy platform or since 1st January 2026, the tes jobsite as well.

Of course, some schools still have active vacancies that have yet to reach their closing date, so the data are probably an underestimate.  The 789 is lower than might be expected number of vacancies from looking at historical data. Is it possible that some MATs no longer advertise headteacher vacancies nationally?

Anyway, there have been 80 schools that have so far readvertised their headteacher vacancy. Of these schools,

50 were primary schools

14 were secondary schools

16 were special schools

13 were Roman Catholic Schools

17 Church of England

  2 other faiths

48 Not faith school

Regionally, the picture is as shown in the table.

REGIONREADVERTADVERT% READ
SE5896%
SW6917%
WM81018%
YH101089%
NW1210711%
EM108112%
L129213%
EE139713%
NE42218%
ENGLAND8078910%

The North East data shows how percentages can be misleading as two of the four schools are special schools. Without those two schools, the percentage drops to a below average 9%.

A bonus of £15,000 might look attractive to someone thinking of a headteacher post in a primary school, but with many secondary headteacher vacancies being advertised with a starting salary in six figures, would £15,000 be enough to attract candidates to apply for the vacancy? How does it compare with subject bonuses for working in such schools?

A review of the 14 secondary schools for percentage pass at Grade 5 in English and mathematics from the DfE website, shows a range of outcomes

22.8
27.0
32.9
33.5
38.5
39.5
40.2
43.7
49.8
51.3
51.5
62.3
64.6
83.5

However, it would suggest that re-advertising secondary schools do appear to have below average outcomes.  However, four of the schools posted their vacancy just before Christmas, and that might be more of reason for the re-advertisement than their GCSE score, that is unless the school has to re-advertise for a second time after an early 2026 re-advert.

Special schools do seem to have difficulty attracting a head teacher, so a bonus there could potentially be useful as an inducement, especially as taking such a headship often involves a house move.

Overall, if the scheme just covered secondary and special schools, it might cost the DfE around £1 million a year. Add in primary schools, and the cost could be much higher.

However, it does seem clear that a school’s results may not be the only barrier to a school recruiting a headteacher easily.

There needs to be certainty that there are sufficient candidates willing, able and experienced enough to move into headship. There the DfE certainly has a role to play.

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.

How easy is it for a mature entrant to become a headteacher?

The recent DfE research into promotions provides some food for thought School leadership in England 2010 to 2020: characteristics and trends

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’.

GradePrimarySecondarySpecial
Head645252
Senior Leader263932
Middle Leader314
Classroom Teacher313
System Entrant369

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.

Does where you study make a difference to ‘A’ Level outcomes?

Next week, pupils will receive their GCSE results and will then have to decide where to continue their studies. If they are intending to take ‘A’ levels, then the options may be between staying on at the same school or transferring either to another school or to an institution run under further education rules such as either a general further education college or a Sixth Form College, where they exist.

As the tables for this years’ results by type of institution shows, there are different percentage in terms of outcomes.

Centre typeYearPercentage of results at grade A and abovePercentage of results at grade C and above
Independent school including city training colleges (CTCs)202548.40%89.70%
Secondary selective school202543.70%88.20%
Free schools202531.30%80.60%
All state-funded202525.20%76.30%
Sixth form college202524.00%76.20%
Academies202523.10%75.00%
Secondary comprehensive or middle school202522.60%75.20%
Other202516.40%55.80%
Secondary modern school/high school202516.30%64.80%
Further education establishment202514.40%66.30%

Young people across England celebrate exam results – GOV.UK

I don’t think anyone would be surprised to see independent schools with the highest percentage of results at A*-A. But it is important to understand what the policy about entering candidates for the examination is when considering outcomes. Is anyone taking the subject entered or is there a bar to be achieved at ‘mock’ exam time to be allowed to enter.

These results also cannot identify any time candidates spent either on tutoring during the course or cramming during the Easer break before the actual examinations.

I am not sure whether the institutions classified as ‘City Training Colleges’ are actually ‘City Technology Colleges’. If so, it is not clear where UTCs and Studio Schools have been located? Possibly, along with the academies group or do they make up the ‘other group’ and does ‘other’ include special schools.  Why Free Schools merit a separate line under a Labour government is an interesting question.

It is also not clear whether the further education establishments (not Sixth Form Colleges) include entries from adults as well as those that would be in Year 13 if at a school? Certainly, anyone thinking of doing ‘A’ levels at a college might want to ask about the grades achieved by students at the college. The eight per cent gap to a comprehensive school for those gaining the top grades in a further education establishment and the nearly nine per cent gap for Grade C and above merits questions if faced with the choice. However, an earlier post noted, there are differences in the percentage of candidates achieving top grades between different subjects, and that may well be a factor in the outcomes.

This year, boys outperformed girls for the first time since 2018. There have also been different rates of improvement when comparing percentages achieving the top grades by type of institution. Without knowing what types of institution are classified as ‘other’ it is difficult to account for the decline in outcomes for the top grades for these schools.

Provider% difference 2025 on 2023
Free schools4
Secondary modern school/high school2.7
Secondary selective school2.3
Independent school including city training colleges (CTCs)1.9
All state-funded1.7
Academies1.6
Sixth form college1.5
Secondary comprehensive1.3
Further education establishment0.7
Other-2.3

It would also be integrating to compare the different types of intuitions by their outcomes by region.

ITT: less good than hoped for

The September data on postgraduate ITT curses was published by the DfE yesterday. Initial teacher training application statistics for courses starting in the 2023 to 2024 academic year – Apply for teacher training – GOV.UK (apply-for-teacher-training.service.gov.uk) Sadly, there was no last-minute surge in offers for teaching. Although offers for primary courses should be sufficient to meet the number of places on offer, the same cannot be said for the secondary sector.

Amongst secondary courses, only English, history, geography and physical education seem likely to meet their DfE targets. Offers in mathematics this September are less than 2,000 for the first time in over a decade. In music and religious education, it is necessary to delve further back in the archives to find offer levels of 480 across the two subjects. There will be real issues with the supply of new teachers in these two subjects next year.

Although physics and design and technology have seen better offer levels than in recent years, in neither subject will the DfE’s suggested recruitment level be met. I suspect that the numbers actually starting courses this year will only be above last year’s dismal total for all secondary subjects if those with conditions pending are able to convert these conditions into recruited students, otherwise the total may be little different to the seriously low number recorded last year.

In mathematics, the number ‘recruited this year is just 1,340 compared with 1,482 last year. However, there are 516 applications listed as ‘conditions pending’ compared with only 300 in this category last year. Should these ‘conditions pending’ relate to visas and right to enter the country it is possible that the number that transfer into the ‘recruited’ column may be smaller than wished for.

The number of new graduates aged 24 or younger is considerably down on last year, a worrying sign for future leadership recruitment. Less than 5,00o men have been ‘recruited’ this year despite the total number of applicants being 16,470 compared with 11,819 last year. This means that those ‘recruited’ has dropped from 46% of applicants to just 30% this year. Such a dramatic decline must merit some form of investigation to allow providers to understand the cause of the change.

The answer may lie with ‘rest of the world applicants, where only 6% have been accepted this year, compared with 13% last year.

The final outcome for recruitment that will include Teach first must await the publication of the ITT Census, early in December. Although this may show a small improvement over last year’s total, there will not be enough trainees to allow the government to be able to say that it has hit its target and STEM has now really become STEAM in terms of recruitment into teacher preparation.

These figures are such as to warn schools to think carefully about recruitment for September 2024 and especially January 2025. Retention may become an important watchword in the corridors of power.

Welcome back to returning teachers

How important are returners to our school system? The DfE measures returner numbers each year as part of the data collected in the November School Workforce Census. The returner numbers during the past few years have been affected by the covid pandemic, so it was important that the fall in new entrants from training last September was balanced by an increased number of returners to help mitigate the staffing crisis affecting schools.

The need for returners will be even more important next September to balance the further reduction in new entrants into training in some subjects in 2023 that seems likely on the latest data around applications and offers.

We won’t know the data on returners this autumn util next June, but the fact that there is a recruitment crisis this year is now well understood.

2017/182018/192019/202020/212021/222022/23
NQT Entrants rate5.35.35.24.54.94.7
FTE number of entrants23,40623,47322,92520,14622,09621,653
Returner Entrants rate3.83.83.73.53.23.7
FTE number of entrants16,59516,86916,30515,77114,66316,737
Deferred Entrants rate0.60.60.60.60.91.0
FTE number of entrants2,7722,6262,6162,8833,8614,750
New to State Entrants rate1.01.00.80.70.71.1
FTE number of entrants4,2914,2483,5192,9843,3924,814
Entrants rate10.810.810.39.39.710.5
FTE number of entrants47,06447,21645,36541,78444,01147,954
Source: DfE School Workforce Census Tables 2022

Although returners were some 2,000 in number higher in 2022/23 than in 2021/22, both their number and percentage was in line with the figures from the three years prior to the pandemic – the equivalent of 3.7% of the workforce, and just short of 17,000 teachers. My guess, is that schools need around 17,000 returners this year, even with the reduction in demand this September across parts of the primary sector.

Looking back into the archives, I see that in the 1980s, returners averaged between 45-50% of entrants each year. In recent years, the percentage has hovered around the low 30%s figure. In 1987, the returner percentage reached what was probably an all-time high of 58%. However, those percentages were reached on a workforce with much less turnover than nowadays.

By 2000, returner numbers were at 13,000, only a few thousand below their current levels. With the fall in rolls now apparent in the primary sector, although not yet affecting the secondary sector: that’s to come in a few years’ time, will schools opt for newly qualified teachers over returners or prefer experience to recent training? Newly qualified teachers are usually cheaper than returners, so if budgets are tight, schools may prefer teachers from training, unless the added requirements of the Early Career Teacher Framework push up the cost of employing new teachers to appoint where returners look to be a cost-effective hire.

There are also likely to be regional differences accentuated in a largely female workforce from the consequences on house prices of increased mortgage rates. Dual household earners may react differently to a period of high mortgage rates to single household earners. High mortgage rates might also force an earlier than anticipated return to the labour market of some teachers currnetly taking a career break. This sort of boost might produce some a short-lived improvement in the teacher labour market in some areas, but would be unlikely to solve to the present crisis in teacher supply.