Tag Archives: teacher recruitment

Teacher Supply: is it helping improve the education of White Working Class children?

Posted on by
Reply

I am grateful to The Inquiry into White Working Class Educational Outcomes Publications | Educational Outcomes for creating a list of routes into teaching over the past quarter century along with support programmes for both new and existing teachers.

I have published their list below. I think that there was also a programme called ‘troops to teachers’ and, in addition, some initiatives in relation to foreign nations  -certainly Micheal Gove extended QTS to those qualified in the USA and some commonwealth countries. I think that a later Conservative government added to Michael Gove’s original list.

Here is their list

Key programmes

Programme Dates Summary

National Professional Qualifications (NPQ) 1997 onwards Accredited professional development for teachers and school leaders, refreshed in 2021 with fully funded places in priority schools.

Fast Track Teaching Programme 2001-2009 Accelerated leadership pathway for promising early-career teachers, aiming to boost retention and progression to promoted posts. In 2009, the government cited the changing educational context as reason for the termination of the programme.

Teach First 2003 onwards Charity recruiting high-achieving graduates to teach in disadvantaged schools for a minimum of two years, combining on the-job training with leadership development.

School Direct 2012 onwards School-led route into initial teacher training (ITT), run in partnership with accredited training providers, allowing schools to shape their own recruitment.

Now Teach 2016 onwards Charity supporting mid- and late-career professionals to retrain as teachers, with tailored induction and mentoring.

Early Career Payments 2018 – 2025 Financial incentives for early-career teachers in shortage subjects (e.g. maths, sciences, languages), especially in challenging areas. Replaced in 2025 by new incentives.

Flexible Working Pilots 2019 Trials exploring how schools can embed flexible working arrangements to improve retention.

Early Career Framework (ECF) 2021 onwards Statutory two-year induction with structured professional development, mentoring, and reduced teaching loads for new teachers.

Staff Wellbeing Charter 2021 onwards Voluntary framework committing schools and the DfE to actions that promote staff wellbeing.

Levelling Up Premium 2022 onwards Retention payment scheme for specialist teachers in key subjects in disadvantaged areas (now ‘Targeted Retention Incentive Payments’). wwci-policy-review.pdf

The report commented that ‘While these measures have sometimes focused on schools serving disadvantaged pupils, there has been no explicit targeting of white working-class communities. Impacts have therefore been indirect, shaped by the geographical distribution of incentives and recruitment programmes.’

And that

‘Addressing underperformance among white working-class pupils will require sustained investment in teacher recruitment and retention in the communities where they are concentrated, alongside professional development that equips staff to engage with the specific cultural and socio-economic contexts of their pupils.’

Whether the fracturing of our school system into many myriad academy chains and smaller local authorities beset by reorganisation challenges has helped improve the education of White Working Class pupils is a moot point.

However, I am aware that a marketplace orientated system for the teacher labour market, with only some small intervention at the staff  a person’s career into teaching doesn’t seem to have made much of an indent into the problem outside of London, where Teach First and funding that has allowed for better staffing ratios than elsewhere has helped improve outcomes for all.

There were  couple of failed initiative sin the time David Laws was Minister of State around creating a cadre of teachers to be offered to schools that could perform better, but those programmes never went anywhere. No more free market for teachers | John Howson

How to improve the outcomes for this in rural areas – whether inland or on the cast – and some urban areas outside of London is a key challenge for this government. How it handles that challenge in relation to teacher supply will be interesting to watch.

Salaries in vacancy adverts: not an issue for most schools

Posted on by
Reply

The government has been reminding employers that they will need to included salary details in job adverts. On the face of it, this isn’t an issue for most Vacancies published by schools, at least not for teachers and school leaders. Most of those vacancies come with the salary level attached.

However, there are a few multi academy trusts that still insist on advertising headteacher vacancies with the wording ‘a competitive salary’.  I have pointed  out in a previous post that such a phrase can be off-putting, as potential candidates don’t know what it means in reality and whether or not it is worth going to the trouble of applying. They will now have to fall into line and add a cash salary to their vacancy advert.

There remains a grey area over both salary points and TLRs (Teaching & Learning Responsibility Points). The former is easier to understand than the latter. Salary scales can change with pay rises, but the new salary levels need the agreement of the Secretary of State before they can be implemented. As a result, at certain times of year, the current salary might not reflect the future amount to be paid. Using the salary scales allows applicants to  see both current and future pay levels, and thus seem justified in an advert to me.

The issue of TLRs is both more complicated and less justified to me. What is the amount of TLR 2.1 or 2a or 2i or any other non-cash descriptor? Some universal agreement on how these salary additions are represented in non-cash terms, so  they can be fully understood by candidate’s from outside the school, would be useful. Of course, candidates can ring up and enquire, but the sense of the government’s position is that they shouldn’t need to do so.

What of other benefits that sometimes appear in adverts, from health care to salary uplifts and car allowances, should these be included in the job advert and, if so, should a real or notional cash sum be attributed to them if the spirit of the government’s announcement is to be adhered to, and not just the letter of the law?

Fortunately, the government hasn’t mentioned holidays, as schools, with their employer-driven form of flexitime would be hard put to be honest about how much holiday a teacher might really expect, contrary to the ‘naysayers’ that still complain about ‘long holidays for teachers’. My analysis of the real position on teachers’ holidays has been  one of the most viewed posts on this blog. Holiday advice – no use for teachers | John Howson

For senior leaders, publishing the starting salary allows for comparison with the salary on offer by other schools of similar sizes by potential candidates either currently or in the recent past. Using that information from vacancies advertised for headteachers since August 2025, I have suggested that headteachers of small primary schools are under-paid. Are Primary Headteachers underpaid? | John Howson

Oxford Teacher Services Ltd: new owners

Posted on by
Reply

Way back in 2013, I set up Oxford Teacher Services Ltd to show how the simple collection of teacher vacancies then being published by schools on their web sites could significantly reduce the cost of advertising teacher vacancies. Eventually, the DfE created a vacancy website that although not perfect did help change the dynamics of teacher recruitment advertising.

Post covid, and my appointment as cabinet member for children’s services in Oxfordshire between 2023 and 2025, I wound down the work of Oxford Teacher Services, although I did manage to help the UAE with their concerns about a teacher supply model, and continued monitoring both ITT and teacher labour market statistics.

Yesterday, Oxford Teacher Services Ltd was sold to OXIE Holdings Ltd. This company is in the forefront of dealing with aspects of AI in schooling, and also the development of ‘drone football’.

You can find out more about OXIE at Oxford Innovative Education – Empowering critical minds and future voices and

‘drone football’ at Drone Football – Oxford Innovative Education

And you can contact them at: bbone@oxie.org.uk

I believe that ‘drone football’ has a great future. Why not book a trial event for a day, for your school, company or youth group. ‘Drone football’ can also be booked for birthday parties. ‘Drone football’ will also be showcased at a number of science fairs over the next year.

I will still continue to monitor labour market data through dataforeducation, and will publish a report early in January on headteacher turnover in England during the 2025-26 school year. If you would like more information about that work, please contact me either through the comment section or by email.

I would like to thank everyone that has helped make the work of Oxford Teacher Services Ltd possible during the past 13 years, and I wish it well for the future as a part of OXIE holdings.

Teacher Preparation Courses: coping well with the latest reforms

Posted on by
Reply

Initial teacher preparation courses have been through a long period of regular government reforms, the most recent period starting with the Carter Review of 2015. The most recent changes are well documented in a new interim evaluation, commissioned  by the DfE Evaluation of reforms to initial teacher training in England: wave 1 interim report

However, since the mid-1980s, firstly with CATE (The Council for Teacher Education) then the TTA (Teacher Training Agency, and its successors) national government has increasingly intervened in the process of teacher preparation, going beyond its traditional role of funding places and general oversight of the curriculum, to the present-day highly regulated regime that supports three main routes into teaching: undergraduate (declining in importance) postgraduate (still the main routes into teaching) and what the report describes as School Direct (postgraduate salaried schemes, most notably Teach First).

The overall conclusion of this interim report was that

‘ the majority of respondents (71%) mentioned being satisfied or very satisfied with the ITT. Levels of satisfaction ranged by 7 percentage points across regions; the South East reported the highest satisfaction (75% satisfied or very satisfied), while the East of England reported the lowest (68% satisfied or very satisfied). Satisfaction levels by phase of ITT ranged by 4 percentage points, with 74% of respondents in the primary phase and 70% in the secondary phase reporting that they were satisfied or very satisfied.’ Page 28

Generally, trainees felt ready to teach

‘Additionally, 81% of trainees reported feeling, or expecting to feel, ready or very ready to teach, either at the time of the survey (if already qualified) or by the end of their ITT programme (for those currently in training),…. In contrast, 8% reported feeling unready or very unready. These figures varied by 10 percentage points across regions. London reported the highest proportion of trainees feeling ready or very ready to teach (85%), while the East of England reported the lowest (75%). The highest proportions of trainees reporting feeling unready or very unready were in the East of England and the North East (both 11%), while London reported the lowest proportion (4%). Differences by ITT phase were small. Among secondary trainees, 82% reported feeling ready or very ready to teach, compared with 79% of primary trainees.’

It would be interesting to unpack these outcomes  by the different age-groups entering training: new graduate, younger career changers and older career movers. Responses were dominated by the HEI sector, accounting for nearly two-thirds of responses, with trainees in SCITTs also well represented : ‘59% of respondents reported that their ITT was delivered or is being delivered by a HEI, while 36% reported that it was delivered by a SCITT provider. The remaining 5% of respondents selected other delivery options, each accounting for 1% or less.’

If it is accepted that there should be a national coherent approach to teacher preparation, and that quality should be of the highest possible standard, then some of the regional differences might be worth exploring further.

Both the North East, the smallest region in terms of ITT, and the North West fared less well than London and the more southern regions in some outcomes. Understanding why, and whether this is just the result of small numbers and not just issues with provision, might be a useful step forward. Policy-makers look at headlines and one trainee in a particular school and training in a particular subject might skew some of the percentages. This would be of concern were this data be for subjects where recruitment was especially challenging during the survey period.

As ever, there is a lot more of interest behind the headlines.

Are London schools’ results slipping?

Posted on by
Reply

The DfE has today published the provisional data about attainment in the school-year 2025/26 Secondary school performance data in England: 2025 to 2026 (provisional) – GOV.UK The data provides two measures, ‘average attainment score’ and the  ‘Percentage of pupils achieving grades 5 or above in English and maths GCSEs’.  

Now, I never put a lot of store by the second of these measures, because it is heavily dependent on the ability of schools to recruit high-quality staff. I may be biased, because I didn’t meet this measure at sixteen, but did go on the good grades at ‘A’ level two years later, and thence to university and my subsequent career.

The other measure of ‘average attainment score’ isn’t perfect, but it does allow for a wider range of achievement, but the outcomes can still be affected by the ability of schools to be able to recruit teachers. Smaller local authorities, covering more homogenous communities, may also fare better in any rankings where those communities are likely to contain a higher proportion of parents engaged with their children’s schooling.

Once again, London boroughs dominate the top twenty-five authorities by outcomes for ‘average attainment score’, taking 17 of the top 25 places. Five of the other eight places are local authorities in the South East. If the Isles of Scilly – the one South West authority in the top 25 – is discounted as a special case, the other two authorities in the top twenty-five were, one in the North West and one in the East of England. Both of these authorities, along with four of the ten Outer London boroughs in the top 25, have selective schools within the authority area.

Interestingly, none of the Inner London’s seven boroughs in the top 25 have selective schools by designation. However, two authorities, Kensington & Chelsea and Hammersmith & Fulham are relatively small authorities.

Overall, the worst performing London borough was ranked 74th (Lambeth) with Croydon the lowest ranked Outer London borough at a ranking of 70th.

As discussed elsewhere, London has traditionally been able to fund its schools to provide some of the best pupil-teacher ratios in England.  (PDF) PTRS OVER TIME: A REVIEW OF PUPIL TEACHER RATIOS BETWEEN 1974 AND 2024 AND TWO PERIODS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RE-ORGANISATION PTRS OVER TIME: A REVIEW OF PUPIL TEACHER RATIOS

Authorities with selective schools do seem to perform well across the country. As the previous posts on pupil place planning have shown, these schools are often well over capacity, raising questions about differences between the selective and non-selective schools in these authorities.   

At the other end  of the table are many local authorities that are either urban metropolitan districts or relatively small urban unitary authorities. The isle of Wight stands out as an example of small non-urban unitary authority close to the foot of the table.

Knowsley and Blackpool and no strangers to the lower reaches of the table. Blackpool was one of the Conservative’s Opportunity Areas, eligible for additional resources and help, but is still 21.5 points adrift of the best performing London borough without selective schools.  

Finally, Cambridgeshire recorded a score of 48.9 in 38th place, whereas Oxfordshire was 67th with  a score of 46.3. Both are fully non-selective authorities serving rural areas, but dominated by a university settlement at the heart of the county. This difference raises a whole set of interesting questions about our state school system.

The answer to the question in the title is ‘no’ compared with 2024/25 when 17 of the top 25 places were also taken by London boroughs. Oxfordshire slipped from 63rd last year to 67th this year. Effectively, a standstill position. Sadly Blackpool and Knowsley both propped up the table last year, as they have done this year.

Applications to teach: a review of the data

Posted on by
Reply

When I started this blog, way back in 2013, universities were out of favour with the government as a route to train teachers. Indeed, Mr Gove once famously used the term ‘blob’ Am I a blob? | John Howson Now, he was referring to local government, but he might just as well have been fingering university departments of education, such was his dislike of their approach to preparing teachers. He much preferred schools as the location for those learning to become a teacher.

Some years later, this blog reviewed the balance between applications to different routes into teaching. I expressed my views in a post in .  A thank you to Schools of Education | John Howson

In that post, I reviewed the percentages for applications in May over four years, as derived from the then UCAS monthly data reports. This was before the DfE took over recruitment through their portal

So here are the percentages for applications in May over the four years reported in that post and as derived from the then UCAS monthly data reports.

Primary2015201620172018
HE51454847
SCITT89910
SDFEE24272525
SDSAL17191818
Secondary2015201620172018
HE51475052
SCITT8101112
SDFEE29312928
SDSAL121297

I thought it might be interesting to see what has happened since the years of the covid pandemic. (I don’t have 2018-2020 data easily to hand). The monthly data for applications is no longer split between primary and secondary, one of a few unhelpful changes to the data presentation. But, at least, there is still monthly data available, and that data has provided fertile grounds for this blog over the years.

The first point to note, when comparing the two tables, is the change in categories, with the ‘Fee’ route disappearing and the ‘Lead Provider’ route replacing it. The ‘teaching degree apprenticeship’ has also appeared, and is now in its second year of applications. Will its significance grow over the next few years?

ALL20222023202420252026
HE4841384042
SCITT1418162017
Fee Route28
SALARIED671198
LEAD PROV030282119
PG T APP457812
T DeGRE APP00012

It is also worth noting that these are percentages. As a result, they hide the fact that in the period covered by the earlier table, pupil rolls were on the increase, and thus more teachers needed to be trained. Will falling rolls, fewer teachers need to be trained currently. Whether that has affected the view of teaching as a career, is of no immediate concern in this post, as the  basis is the percentages applying for each route.

Apprenticeship have now secured a strong foothold in the minds of would-be teachers, accounting for 14% or nearly one in seven applications by the end of May 2026. School Centred Courses (SCITTs) have been around for more than 30 years now. In May 2025 they accounted for 25% of applications, but have fallen back in 2026 to 17% this May.

The various salaried routes saw an increase in applications after covid, but, possibly because of the graduate apprenticeship route, their percentage seems to be in decline from the 11% of applications reached in May 2024 to eight per cent in 2026.  

Seemingly, higher education is the main loser; down from 48% in 2022 to 42% in May 2026. This is nine percentage points below its position in May 2015, when higher education accounted for 52% of applications. I suspect that a significant percentage of the decline is down to fewer primary places being on offer in the past few years. As those courses normally ‘fill’ with offers early in the cycle, fewer places will have generated fewer applications. The four-percentage point gain over the past two years, may be down to an increase in ‘rest of the world’ applicants who may know more about universities than the other routes on offer. The DfE no doubt has that data, but it is not shared in the monthly statistics.

Where to place the Provider Led courses? Are they a direct transfer from the former School Direct Fee route, or something different. Either way, either their popularity or their availability to applicants,  has seen their percentage decline quite steeply in recent years.

The data in this post is based upon trends in applications. At some point in the future, I will look at trends in ‘offer’ and actual attendance, as measured by the ITT Census, produced each December by the DfE. The post also uses the month of May data, not the endo f the round .This is because by May some subjects and the primary sector are often not accepting any more applications, so May is a good time to review the application round when the majority of courses have been accepting applications.

For now, the universities are still the leading route into teaching, but will vice chancellors still want to play in this game as they consider their financial futures, especially if targets, and thus income will be reducing because of falling rolls? Smaller groups are often uneconomic, and subsidy is not the name of the game in higher education at present. Interesting times.

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

Posted on by
Reply

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).  

Selective schools and falling rolls

Posted on by
1

Way back in history, well 2018 to be precise, I wrote a blog about selective schools during a period of rising pupil numbers. A fudge with no teeth | John Howson As the country now heads into a period of falling pupil rolls, discussed in my previous post in relation to all secondary schools, I thought that I would take a look at rolls across the selective school sector in the autumn of 2026.

The DfE uses two measures ‘capacity’ and ‘number on roll’. Capacity is defined as ‘The number of pupil places the establishment can accommodate.’ Outwood Academy Hasland Hall – GOV.UK link used as an example. In a rational system might the number on roll (NOR) be expected to be somewhere between +/- say 5% of the capacity number? In reality, in the selective school sector, currently this is not the case.

Selective schools fall into one of three groups;

within the 5% of NOR                                    69
NOR more than 5% below capacity20
NOR more than 5% above capacity74

Just over a half of selective schools are either within or below capacity, whereas 46% of these schools are more than five per cent over the DfE’s recorded capacity.

Are there any regional differences? Answering that question must acknowledge that the spread of selective schools is not even across England, with for fewer in the north and the midlands than in the south and west of England.

Regionwithin the 5% of NOR               NOR more than 5% below capacityNOR more than 5% above capacityTotal% above 5%
East of England404850%
East Midlands7631619%
London61121963%
North East00000
North West12431916%
South East244295751%
South West55102050%
West Midlands80111958%
Yorks & Humber312633%
Total67217416246%

The East Midlands has relatively few selective schools, mostly in rural areas, and most are either within or below capacity. Might this be down to transport issues, and any absence of free transport to  selective schools from rural areas? Both the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber’s regions few selective schools are mostly within or below capacity. Again, might transport be an issue?

In  London, the South East, South West, East of England and the West Midlands, at least half the selective schools are more than 50% over capacity, by DfE data.

London, has the highest percentage of selective school more than 50% over capacity at  63%, followed by the West Midlands at 58%. Both regions have few, if any, schools with selective school operating at more than 5% below capacity. Whether the urban nature of these regions males a difference isn’t clear, but the North West also has few schools operating below capacity.

The next piece of research is to consider the urban/rural nature of selective schools below capacity and whether the lack of free transport might be affecting these schools?

However, the big question is who will lose cash as pupil rolls fall? Will over-capacity selective schools reduce their rolls, and either stop hiring or make staff redundant or will non-selective schools have to bear all the loss of income resulting from falling rolls under the present pupil led funding system?

This is where the importance of pupil place planning becomes clear. What will a Labour government do? Favour selective schools or ensure they return to capacity?

This is an interesting question that needs airing, especially as this Labour government seem as unwilling as the last to design a secondary school system fit or all pupils.  

Are dashboards useful?

Posted on by
2

LinkedIn invited me to try their new lead generation tool. I asked it to look at this blog, and it came up with a number of possible future posts I could use to gather new readers, all generated by AI (artificial intelligence) from some key prompts and audience identifies that I provided.

It is an interesting piece, although, I have altered (added in italics) some additional text. I would be fascinated to hear what readers think.

AI starts here

A dashboard showing applications up fifteen percent across the board is one of the easier things in education data to misread, and can be one of the more expensive in terms of outcomes.

If you consider recruitment to Initial Teacher Training (ITT) as an example. The structural reason that a dashboard can be misleading is that an ITT recruitment dashboard aggregates things that behave nothing like each other. Domestic and international applicants, candidates with and without visa routes, subjects with entirely different seasonal curves, and applications that will convert at wildly different rates all sit inside the same headline number. The dashboard is honest. The aggregation is what misleads.

Three patterns come up repeatedly:

– Treating a total as a common trend, when a surge in one subject or one applicant group is carrying the whole figure

– Reading application volume as recruitment, when the gap between offer, acceptance and enrolment is where subjects like physics may be very different to that in Classics.

– Comparing the current month to the same month last year without checking whether the policy environment, bursary levels or visa rules changed in between

However, the second-order effect is the one that causes real damage. When a headline figure looks healthy in December, the case for intervention weakens, and by the time the subject-level picture is unambiguous in March the levers that would have mattered, bursary announcements, provider allocations, targeted campaigns, may have already closed for the cycle.

Intervention decisions are can risk being made against an aggregated number at exactly the point in the year when disaggregation would tell you, the reader, something much more useful.

The key takeaway: the dashboard rarely gets the arithmetic wrong. However, all too often it might be read as a single story when, in reality, it is holding four or five different stories, and the one that matters is usually the quietest.

AI ends here.

My message that isn’t in the AI piece, is, if designing a dashboard, first know what is its purpose. If you don’t know what it might reveal, check regularly for trends. As an example: when I first started counting headteacher vacancies in the 1980s, I didn’t know that church schools will be more likely to re-advertise their vacancy than non-faith schools. When looking at teacher vacancies; I didn’t know the rhythm for temporary and maternity leave vacancies being advertised, but I had a hunch, and added the field to the database. As a result, I would also say, collect as much data as you can, when constructing a database, as you might not know what it will tell you.

So, thanks to AI for simulating this post, and quickly offering me some thoughts about many posts I had already written. Does this make this a genuine post or an artificial one?

Why the ITT Census should never be a surprise

Posted on by
Reply

How early in the annual ITT recruitment cycle can you confidentially predict the outcome? I asked myself this question when, earlier today, someone looked up a post on the blog that I wrote in February 2022. Not much of a Christmas Present | John Howson

Based on the data from the end of January 2022 for courses starting that autumn, I wrote the following

‘In summary, there is a degree of caution about the data in this monthly release, but there is almost certainly work still to be done to avoid another year of under-recruitment and a tight labour market for schools in 2023’

This was my cautious way of saying that a further year of trouble lay ahead. Even I, at that time, could not have predicted how far away from the targets the outcome for that year’s recruitment was to be. Of course, the targets may well have been too high, just as the current year’s targets may well be too low in some subjects. Nevertheless, recruitment outcomes were brutal. See STEM subjects ‘late recruiters’? | John Howson and More on the ITT census | John Howson as well as a number of other posts during December 2022 discussing the ITT census and its findings.

Over the course of more than 25 years studying monthly trends in recruitment, I believe that by the end of February in a normal year – Covid pandemic years being an unforeseen exception – it is possible to predict trends from that month’s data. This is because, by then, applications from final year undergraduates and discontented new graduates are in decline as finalists concentrate on exams and final coursework to be replaced for the next six month much more by career switchers.

Crucially, in Jue and July  new graduates that haven’t found a job may swell the number of applicants when there is a tight graduate labour market. If there are plenty of graduate jobs, and the application rate until June has been subdued, a late bounce is unlikely.

In the past three years, application data has been made more challenging to interpret because of the large influx of applicants from ‘the rest of the world’. These applicants may account for as much as 25% of the total number of applicants. Even if they are made ‘offers’ will they obtain the necessary visa to come to England, and then will they be allowed to teacher here? So far, this is an issue in some subjects, but not across the board.

Should the DfE react to poor recruitment data? An interesting question. They did react in 2013 in July when I ventured to suggest some subjects would not hit their targets. You can read what happened in my book ‘teachers, schools and their vies on education’ available either n Amazon or directly from myself via the comments section.

Suffice to say, I think that was a face-saving exercise, but the substantive point remains. Can and should the government intervene in a cycle to help recruitment. Hopefully, with falling rolls and the threat of AI, they won’t need to. However, it is worth remembering that the Training Grant was announced in a March, and had an immediate effect upon recruitment.