Teacher shortages are commonplace across the globe

OECD has today published the 2026 edition of ‘Education Indicators At a glance’. Education at a Glance 2026 | OECD The section on teacher shortages has already received several comments on LinkedIn and elsewhere. I though I might look in some detail about the United Kingdom section in the ’country report’ about teacher shortages.

On the face of it, the UK fares well compared with other countries. Apparently, only 2.9% of teachers in state schools are not fully qualified. I wonder what the percentage would be for Further Education?

Teacher shortages

  • Shortages of skilled workers have affected many sectors across the OECD in recent years, and the teaching profession is no exception. Teacher shortages manifest in different ways across education systems: in some countries, a lack of fully qualified teachers is reflected in a higher share of non-fully qualified staff, while in others a significant number of teaching positions remain unfilled.
  • Non-fully qualified teachers refer to teachers who do not yet meet all the requirements to be recognised as fully qualified teachers under national regulations. In most countries, they either possess the required academic qualifications but lack mandatory certification or teacher training, have completed the required teacher training but do not hold the required academic qualifications, or lack both. In England, 2.9% of all primary and secondary teachers in public institutions were not fully qualified in 2024/25, below the OECD average of 9.1% (Figure 1).
  • Countries use two main approaches to measuring teacher shortages. The first approach estimates shortages before or at the start of the school year based on projected recruitment needs. The second approach measures shortages by counting the number of positions that remain vacant at the start of the school year or shortly after it begins. England uses the second approach, and 0.6% of all teaching positions in public secondary education were unfilled at or shortly before the start of the 2024/25 school year (Table 2). Education at a Glance 2026: United Kingdom

However, it is important to delve into what’ ‘Qualified’ actually means.

In England, possession of QTS allows teachers, not, interestingly, a reserved occupation term, to teach anything to anyone at any level. For the past 25 years, I have been asking for QTS to be linked to phase and subject studied in ITT. However, apart from in the Liberal Democrat Manifesto in 20025, there has been no political appetite to limit QTS in any way. I still think that is a mistake. The over-supply of PE and history teachers has helped keep school fully staffed during the recruitment crisis that started way back in 2013, but may now be coming to an end.

It is also worth pointing out that schools can be fully staffed in England by adjusting the curriculum, and dropping subjects they cannot staff. The other alternative, as OECD noted, is using less well-qualified staff. The figures on combined versus separate science at Key Stage 4 between different types of school are stark. The former can be staffed with teachers with less subject knowledge than the latter. If you don’t pass the 11+, you probably won’t study Physics as a subject by KS4 | John Howson

I was surprised that OECD appears to have accepted the DfE data at face value and not to have a definition that would deal with the fact that QTS is so broad as to be meaningless at both primary and secondary school levels.

PTRs: an update

The publication of the 30TH Report of the School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB) Report earlier this week contained the usual chapter on the state of the labour market for teachers. As is often the case, the DfE provided a set of data with their evidence that found its way into the relevant chapter of the report.

One such table was for the Pupil Teacher Ratios for Qualified Teachers, by primary and secondary sectors for all state-funded schools

The STRB table appears to have used data from the School Workforce Census up to 2018. The 2019 data presumably appeared too late to be included in the Report, but I have added it to the Table for the purpose of completeness.

Pupil to teacher ratio (Qualified) within-schools for ‘Pupil-teacher ratios’
201120122013201420152016201720182019
LA maintained nursery and primary2120.920.92121.121.321.721.521.3
LA maintained secondary15.615.515.715.816.116.416.717.217
* see foot of post for link

Curiously, the data from the DfE site on the School Workforce Census for Qualified teachers in 2018/19 differs from the numbers in the STRB Table as the extract from the DFE site reveals.

Table showing Pupil to teacher ratio (Qualified) within-schools for ‘Pupil-teacher ratios’ from ‘School workforce in England’ in England between 2018/19 and 2019/20
2018/192019/20
LA maintained nursery and primary21.321.3
LA maintained secondary16.717

https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/data-tables/fast-track/bf13ef14-3069-4638-a489-d31a2248e984

I don’t know the reasons for the apparent differences between the two datasets. The new method of producing statistics on the DfE site makes time series data more of a challenge to create for those used to the former presentation. I am sure that the new system will allow for easier interrogation of the data, one the initial challenges have bene overcome. However, it does alter the dynamics of the relationship with the data if you can only ask pre-set questions, and cannot eye-ball the dataset for possibly interesting patterns that have not occurred to the statisticians in the civil service.

There are couple of odd anomalies in the Secondary PTR data for 2019. Two unitary authorities, Portsmouth and Telford & Wrekin, are recorded as experiencing very large changes between 2018 and 2019. In the case of Portsmouth’s data about Qualified Teachers in the secondary sector, the PTR went from 16.7:1 to 18.5:1 in one year. This is well outside the normal degree of change.

In the past there have been errors recorded in the PTR tables.  Indeed, one year a Volume of Statistics of Education – Teachers had to be recalled as there were so many mistakes. More recently,  a glitch resulted in mistakes for some local authorities in Yorkshire and The Humber Region appearing in one version of the table.

Finally, it is worth noting the relationship between school funding and PTRs. The direction of travel is a good lagging indicators of how well schools are funded, especially now that funding is so closely related to pupil numbers.

Should the remaining shire counties be reformed into unitary councils in the autumn, as has been predicted, then 2020 might be the last time for some years that PTR data will provide anything like a reliable picture of staffing trends in schools across a whole swathe of rural England.

*

Further reflections

The Daily Mail is apparently carrying a story today of a leaked DfE email revealing a fall in teacher numbers. This is seen as a revelation, even though Table 2a of the DfE’s analysis of the Teacher Workforce, published in June 2018, showed a fall in teacher numbers between the 2016 and 2017 census points. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/school-workforce-in-england-november-2017

However, I suppose that when a staunchly Tory supporting newspaper starts printing bad news stories about the working of a Conservative government one must anticipate that either the end is nigh or that editorial control is weak over the Christmas and New Year period.

Had either the Daily Mail or any other media outlet wanted to pick a more up to the minute bad news story about teacher numbers, they could have done no better to use my previous post as the basis for a news item. Readers will recall that based on data released yesterday by UCAS, it appears that fewer graduates want to become primary school teachers than in the past.  The Daily Mail could have run a headline around ‘Who will teach Tiny Tim?’ about this fall in applications to train as a primary teacher.

Delving further into the UCAS data than I had time to do yesterday, it seems as if more career changers were queuing up to apply to train as a teacher in 2019, than were new young graduates. However, the 230 additional graduates in their 30s and 40s compared with December 2017 were not enough to offset the reduction of 400 in those from the 22-22 age group that have not applied this year. Hopefully, they are still weighing up their options.

For the first time in some years, fewer than 1,000 men from the 21-22 age group have applied for a place to train as a teacher on either a primary or secondary course starting in 2019. However, it is the continued relative lack of interest from young female graduates that should concern officials even more. This group in the past has been the bedrock of those applying in the early part of the recruitment round.

Rather than evaluating the overall success or otherwise of the marketing campaign, the DfE should urgently be investigating why this group, of whom there will be fewer emerging from universities over the next few years, are taking longer to think about teaching as a career. Last year, enough came around in the end to ensure all places for primary teachers were filled, but the warning signs are there and need investigation.

Perhaps the DfE has over-emphasised the need for secondary subject teachers and rather taken the primary sector for granted, apart from the need to ensure sufficient teachers with expertise in mathematics. The DfE doesn’t have a policy of ensuring sufficient subject knowledge across the curriculum to ensure that able pupils can be motivated and intellectually stretched either within the primary school or in other ways.

Perhaps it is time to reconstruct those local CDP offering managed by teams of staff than know their schools and teachers. Doing so in a cost effective manner might mean upsetting some MATs and even diocese, but can we afford anything other than the most cost effective system for such CPD?