Teacher recruitment, training and retention

1 Introduction

1. Teacher recruitment and retention has been a persistent challenge for over a decade. We decided to investigate because since 2015/16, Government statistics have shown a consistent failure to meet initial teacher training targets with the exception of the pandemic affected year 2020/21 as well as increasing attrition. We have also heard that shortages of subject expertise in key subjects such as mathematics and physics have been worsening. We launched our inquiry in March 2023.

2. We received more than 150 written submissions, and held five oral evidence sessions, taking evidence from a wide range of witnesses including union leaders, the Chartered College for Teaching, initial teacher training providers, subject associations and third sector organisations. In our final oral evidence session, we heard from the Minister of State for Schools (the Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP), and Sue Lovelock, Director of Teaching Workforce: Candidates, Trainees, Strategy, Portfolio and Analysis at the Department for Education. We also held an informal engagement roundtable where teachers and school leaders shared their experiences. We are grateful to all those who contributed to our inquiry, whose views have informed our thinking. We are particularly indebted to the frontline teachers and school leaders who found time within their very busy working days to contribute.

What has been done so far?

3. In 2017 the then Education Committee published a report following its inquiry on the recruitment and retention of teachers.¹ The report said that:

The shortage of teachers is a continuing challenge for the education sector in England, particularly in certain subjects and regions. Although the Government recognises that there are issues, it has been unable to address them and consistently fails to meet recruitment targets.

4. This followed a report published in May 2016, by the then Public Accounts Committee, which expressed disappointment that the Department for Education has missed its targets to fill teacher training places four years running, with significant shortfalls in some subjects.²

5. In 2019 the Department published a strategy on teacher recruitment and retention which it said was based on extensive evidence and developed collaboratively with experts, including teachers and teacher training providers.³ The strategy focused around four priorities:

Create the right climate for leaders to establish supportive school cultures: reforming the school accountability system with a new Ofsted framework which will have an “active focus on reducing teacher workload”.
Transform support for early career teachers: launching the Early Career Framework, a fully funded 2-year package of structured support for all early career teachers. Additionally, launching funded time off-timetable and additional support for mentors.
Build a career offer that remains attractive to teachers as their careers and lives develop: Developing a specialist qualification to support non-leadership career pathways for teachers and supporting headteachers to transform approaches to flexible working in schools.
Make it easier for people to become teachers: simplifying the process to become a teacher and introduce a new one-stop application service for initial teacher training. Reviewing initial teacher training market to support it to work more “efficiently and effectively”.

6. Since the launch of the strategy various new teacher reforms have been introduced including:

Box 1: Recent teacher reforms

Pay

The Department announced reforms to teacher pay that would see the starting salaries rise to £30,000 by 2022–23; this was achieved a year ahead of schedule.

Training and continuing professional development (CPD)

The revised Initial teacher training: core content framework was published and became mandatory in 2020.⁴ Since then, it has undergone further revision and from September 2025 the Initial teacher training and early career framework will replace this framework.⁵
An initial teacher training market review was launched with the aim of providing “consistently high-quality training” in a “more efficient and effective” market. The ITT market review report was published in July 2021.⁶ Following this report, a new accreditation process for ITT providers was launched.
An Early Career Framework pilot was launched in 2020, then rolled out nationally in 2021.⁷ From September 2025 the initial teacher training and early career framework will replace this framework.⁸
From September 2021 new National professional qualifications (NPQs) frameworks were implemented.⁹ These frameworks set out what participants should know and be able to do after completing an NPQ. The Department have also subsidised NPQs covering the full cost of the qualification which previously was paid by the employer.

Box 1: Recent teacher reforms (continued)

87 Teaching Schools Hubs were launched in 2021 providing national coverage. These Hubs are “centres of excellence for teacher training and development”, providing professional development for teachers.
A national institute of teaching was created and the contract to provide this was awarded to a consortium of MATs

School culture

The Education staff wellbeing charter was launched in 2021.¹⁰ Schools and colleges can voluntarily sign up to a “declaration to protect, promote and enhance the wellbeing and mental health of everyone working in state education”.
The School workload reduction toolkit has been updated and expanded to include guidance on curriculum planning and resources, feedback and marking and wellbeing and workload.¹¹
Flexible working ambassador multi-academy trusts and schools were appointed to offer advice and support on flexible working to schools in their region.
The Flexible working toolkit was published in June 2023.¹² This was developed by the Department in collaboration with Flexible Working Ambassador Schools, school leaders and experts within the education sector.

Source: Department for Education (TTR0148)

What is the situation now?

7. When asked to assess the progress of the 2019 recruitment and retention strategy, the Schools Minister, Damian Hinds MP admitted that though there has been “good progress” (citing “the largest number of teachers in schools in England that we have ever had” as evidence of this) the Department for Education still “clearly have a lot to do” in terms of teacher recruitment and retention.¹³

8. The room for improvement is reflected in data from the most recent School Workforce Census (SWC) which found there were 468,400 full time equivalent (FTE) teachers, an increase of 2800 compared to 2021 and the highest level since the SWC began in 2010.¹⁴ However, it also showed that there has been a return to pre-pandemic leaver rates with 44,000 teachers leaving the state-funded sector in 2021/22 compared to 36,200 in 2020/21. There has also been an increase in the number of teacher vacancies in state funded schools, increasing from 1,098 in 2020/21 to 1,564 in 2021/22. The table 1 below, shows these figures since 2010/11:

Table 1: Pupil to teacher ratio (Qualified) within-schools

Academic year	State-funded nursery and primary	State-funded secondary
2010/11	20.8	15.4
2011/12	20.9	15.5
2012/13	20.8	15.4
2013/14	20.8	15.4
2014/15	20.7	15.4
2015/16	20.9	15.7
2016/17	21.0	16.1
2017/18	21.3	16.5
2018/19	21.4	16.8
2019/20	21.4	17.2
2020/21	21.1	17.1
2021/22	21.0	17.1
2022/23	21.1	17.2

Source: Explore education statistics (Gov.uk)

9. Over the past decade the overall number of teachers in state funded schools has not kept pace with increasing pupil numbers. After peaking in 2019/2020, at 21.4 in nursery and primary and 17.2 in secondary the pupil to qualified staff ratio in state funded schools has remained relatively high. According to the most recent data there were 21 pupils for every one nursery and primary school teacher in 2022/23 and 16.8 pupils for every one secondary school teacher in 2022/23. representing a 0.1 increase in both phases compared to the previous school year.¹⁵ In practice such high pupil to staff ratios mean fewer staff per pupil and larger class sizes. We were told by the Joint General Secretary of the National Education Union, Dr Mary Bousted, that:

There are now more than 1 million pupils taught in classes with more than 30 pupils.
One in seven pupils in secondary schools are taught in classes with more than 30 pupils.
One in eight primary pupils are taught in classes with more than 30 pupils.¹⁶

10. The Department’s school workforce statistical release in June 2023 showed the following:

44,000 teachers left the state-funded sector in 2021/22 (up by 7,800 from the previous year). This represents 9.7% of all qualified teachers, which is the highest rate since 2017/18;
The rate of teachers leaving due to retirement continues to decrease, while the rate of teachers leaving due to a change in career or joining other UK education sectors is increasing. Currently this group makes up the majority (91%) of leavers.

11. Supply and retention issues span all phases of education and all career stages within teaching. In our first evidence session we heard about the specific “supply and retention crisis at leadership level”. Paul Whiteman, General Secretary, NAHT told us:

In our recent survey, less than one-third of school leaders would recommend leadership as a career option going forward. More than half, 53% of assistant and deputy headteachers told us that they had no interest in stepping up to be a headteacher in a school. Not only are our members struggling to recruit and retain the education workforce within their schools, but we are losing leaders at the same rate that we are losing teachers.¹⁷

12. Across the inquiry we also heard about the poor retention of early career teachers. The NEU’s evidence to the School Teachers Review Body (STRB) for 2023 highlighted that:

The loss of early career teachers seems particularly acute, with around a quarter of teachers leaving within three years; and
Fewer than 60% of teachers are still in the profession after 10 years, and the number of teachers leaving the profession before retirement has increased after falling in 2020–21.¹⁸

13. Dr Luke Sibieta, Research Fellow at the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed this and described the persistence of high attrition amongst early career teachers. He told us:

A lot of the problems with retention happen early in teachers’ careers. After one year, about 87% of teachers are still in post; after five years, that is down to about two thirds, and that picture has not changed much over the last 10 or 15 years. We have always seen this problem of teachers leaving early in their careers.¹⁹

14. Poor retention has resulted in the rate of teacher vacancies and temporarily filled posts rising (Figure 1). Between 2020 and 2022 teacher vacancies doubled and despite a consistent decline in the number of temporarily filled posts between 2016 and 2020 this figure is on the rise again.

Figure 1: Teacher vacancies and temporarily filled posts, 2010/11–2022/23

15. There are more detailed statistics available by type of school. For 2022/23, these show that:

Local authority (LA) maintained nursery and primary schools carried 266 vacancies, with a vacancy rate of 0.2% of the workforce;
LA maintained secondary schools carried 196 vacancies, with a vacancy rate of 0.4% of the workforce;
Primary academies carried 334 vacancies, with a vacancy rate of 0.4% of the workforce; and
Secondary academies carried 1,306 vacancies, with a vacancy rate of 0.8% of the workforce.

16. Jack Worth, NFER School Workforce Lead, published a response to these statistics, saying that:

It is hugely concerning that 40,000 working-age teachers left the profession last year [2022], the highest level since records began in 2010. While fewer teachers retired, the overall picture is that teacher leaving rates rose in 2022 to just above the pre-pandemic level amid a competitive wider labour market.²⁰

17. The most recent postgraduate initial teacher training (PGITT) data from the Department indicate ongoing recruitment issues, with the peak in recruitment during the pandemic not being sustained. The Initial Teacher Training Census for the 2023/24 academic year found 50% of the ITT recruitment target was reached for secondary school subjects (down from 57% in 2022/23) and 96% of the ITT recruitment target was reached for primary school subjects (up from 91% in 2022/23). The graph below illustrates the primary, secondary and overall recruitment levels against overall ITT recruitment targets since 2018/19:

Figure 2 School Workforce in England 2018/19–2023/24

18. Witnesses highlighted the imbalance between teacher numbers and pupils, despite the growth of teacher numbers. Dr Mary Bousted, Joint General Secretary, National Education Union told us:

Although the Government will say we have more teachers in the classroom than ever before, what they don’t say is that there are 1 million more pupils in the classroom. There is a 6% rise in teacher numbers and an 11% rise in pupil numbers.²¹

19. Overall pupil numbers are projected to fall by 9.4% between 2022 and 2030. However, projections vary across different phases of education. The Department told us that a demographic ‘bulge’ has recently moved through primary education: as a result, primary pupil numbers are expected to fall until 2030 while secondary pupil numbers are expected to increase, likely peaking this year at 3,230,000 (a 3.3% increase on 2022) as this cohort enters secondary education. The requirement for specialist expertise to teach both GCSEs and A levels is therefore likely to be increasing for some time to come.

20. There are now over 468,000 teachers which we accept as an improvement in absolute terms though not relative to pupil numbers. However, we recognise that this is still insufficient, particularly when we know recruitment targets continue to be missed, the number of teacher vacancies doubled between 2020 and 2022 and that secondary pupil numbers are expected to peak at around 3,230,000 this year. Progress on recruitment needs to be sustained and improved in order to manage and meet the needs of this demographic ‘bulge’.

21. Throughout our inquiry we heard about the struggles different phases of education are having managing teacher recruitment and retention.

22. Dr Mary Bousted, Joint General Secretary at National Education Union highlighted the particular trouble secondary schools are having, in terms of the demographic bulge and the complications of finding “the right teacher with the right [subject] qualifications for secondary classrooms”.²² We explore this further in chapter 5.

23. Jenny Sherrard, National Head of Equality and Policy at University and College Union told us that Further Education (FE) performs worse than schools in terms of teacher recruitment and retention:

96% of colleges are reporting that they are struggling to recruit staff, according to the Association of Colleges’ latest workforce survey. We know that 25% of further education teachers are leaving after just one year in the job, compared again to 15% in schools²³

24. The struggle to recruit in the FE sector was also acknowledged by Schools Minister, Damian Hinds MP who told us:

It is true that there are particular recruitment challenges in further education, and in many ways even more so than in schools, because there are more things that young people—and not so young people—are doing in FE colleges than in schools. There is a bigger range of industrial sector expertise and experience that you are looking for and some can be quite hard to find because you are competing against really well-remunerated jobs in the private sector economy.²⁴

25. Our evidence suggests that recruitment and retention issues occur at every stage of education, from primary school through to further education. However, the challenge increases as we move up the phases with more vacancies and a greater retention challenge in secondary than in primary and again in post 16. The Department must ensure that efforts are being made to improve recruitment and retention throughout all stages of education and that any demographic bulges are tracked, planned for and responded to right the way through the system.

Teacher workforce model

26. Since 2021 initial teacher training recruitment targets have been calculated using analysis from the Teacher Workforce Model. According to the Department the Teacher Workforce Model offers a “more holistic approach to [postgraduate] ITT recruitment target setting”²⁵ with targets being determined by a variety of data inputs including:

data on both the composition of the teacher workforce and curriculum taught in secondary schools;
returner and leaver rates;
historical recruitment performance;
economic data and forecasts on labour market behaviour, and
latest data and assumptions on the future recruitment and retention of teachers.

27. Postgraduate ITT was described to us by the Schools Minister as the Department’s “single most important route” into teaching.²⁶ Thus, it is crucial that the model used by the Department considers the cumulative effect of all these factors when calculating ITT recruitment targets. It is also important to note, however, that ITT recruitment is unlimited so any number of teachers can be recruited regardless of the calculated target.

28. We welcome the Department’s approach to setting postgraduate initial teacher training recruitment targets using the Teacher Workforce Model. However, changes need to be made if a more holistic picture of the demand for teachers across all subjects and phases of education is to be achieved. The Department should ensure that pupil demographic trends are included in analysis to ensure future demand is taken into full account when setting recruitment targets. We also recommend that the Teacher Workforce Model should be extended to cover the post-16 and further education phases, meaning the model estimates the number of qualified teachers required by state-funded primary and secondary schools (including nursery and post-16 provision within such schools), academies, free schools, post-16 providers and further education colleges in England.

2 Financial incentives for recruitment and retention

Teacher pay: competitiveness and growth

29. Teacher pay has long been a point of contention, particularly concerning real terms reductions, pay competitiveness and pay progression. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has highlighted a “long period of real-terms reductions in teacher salaries dating back to 2010”.²⁷ Philip Nye, Data Scientist at the Institute for Government told us that since 2009–2010 teacher pay has decreased in real terms by around 12.5% for secondary school teachers and 15% for primary school teachers.²⁸

30. Looking internationally, the OECD’s Education at a Glance analysis from 2022 shows starting salaries in England were then below the EU22 and OECD average (Figure 3 and Table 2). However, in recognition of this a £30,000 starting salary for new teachers was introduced in 2023 to improve the competitiveness of teacher salaries in England. This was welcomed by many of our witnesses as a step towards improving teacher pay.

Table 2: Upper secondary teachers’ average actual salaries compared to the statutory minimum and maximum salaries (2022 salaries of state-funded teachers, in equivalent USD adjusted for PPP)

	Starting salary/minimum qualifications	Salary at top of scale/maximum qualifications	Actual salaries of 25–64 year-old teachers
England	34 732	85 243	53 942
EU25 average	36 713	46 395	#N/A
France (2020 data)	37 720	74 175	56 037
Germany	81 141	110 694	95 077
Italy	35 447	55 106	44 843
OECD average	38 498	51 329	53 119
Sweden (2021 data)	45 132	59 048	51 660
United States	48 187	77 638	66 438

Upper secondary teachers’ average actual salaries compared to the statutory minimum and maximum salaries

Figure 3: OECD (2021), Table D3.3 and Education at a Glance Database, Education at a Glance 2021 Annex 3.

31. Evidence from the Education Policy Institute describes the real terms reduction to teachers pay in England since 2010 as “unusual” in the international context and describes England as “near the bottom of the table” in terms of pay growth during the 2010s for teachers across OECD countries.²⁹

32. Within England, teaching is one of the public sector professions that has experienced the lowest pay growth since 2010, with primary school teaching the lowest of all those measured by the Institute for Government. This disparity becomes even larger when compared with the growth of pay in the private sector (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Change in median gross earnings of selected public sector professionals since 2009/10 (real terms)³⁰

33. Limited growth undermines the competitiveness of teacher pay, particularly in comparison to other postgraduate occupations. Income data research commissioned by the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) found both secondary and primary teacher pay to be “lagging behind” comparable non-teaching postgraduate occupations by 12% (secondary) and 29% (primary).³¹

34. Teachers tend to move through the main pay scale relatively quickly, with over 50% of classroom teachers on the upper pay scale (£43,266 to £46,525).³² However, we have heard that there is limited opportunity for progression beyond this unless teachers go into school management and leadership. Dr Luke Sibieta, research fellow at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, told us:

We have a relatively steep profile early on in a teacher’s career, and they get stuck at the top of what is known as the upper pay scale, which they get at around their early 30s. The only way you move beyond that is by becoming a head of department, a deputy headteacher, or a headteacher, so you do get stuck. Whilst in the private sector, you would see continued pay progression through your 40s and your 50s, which makes the private sector much more competitive for those sorts of workers.³³

35. Education Support’s 2023 Commission on Teacher Retention found that “pay is a significant driver of teacher attrition”.³⁴ Dr Patrick Roach, General Secretary at NASUWT, told us that “deteriorating real-terms rates of pay” is one of the main answers given when teachers are asked why they have left the profession.³⁵

Teacher pay: starting salaries

36. Evidence from the Department for Education acknowledges the importance of “an attractive starting salary” to recruit high quality graduates into teaching.³⁶ The introduction of a £30,000 starting salary for new teachers from 2023 was described by the Minister of State for Schools (the Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP), as a “fair and competitive salary”.³⁷

37. However, we know that the competitiveness of a £30,000 starting salary varies depending on other employment options. During our roundtable with teachers and school leaders, participants told us they no longer felt the teaching salary was competitive enough, particularly for those with STEM backgrounds. We heard that this is one of the main reasons these subjects are often underrecruited and miss PIGITT (postgraduate initial teacher training) targets. One participant told us:

If you’ve got a maths degree, why choose to be a teacher at the moment, there’s plenty of other options, plenty of things you could do.³⁸

38. We heard a similar sentiment from representatives from the Institute of Physics, who said:

Pay competitiveness is a factor in physics. Other pathways open to graduates could include what appear to be very exciting roles in R&D-intensive industries, quantum, green tech and so on.³⁹

39. To counteract the lack of competitiveness of a £30,000 starting salary in the STEM sector the Department for Education introduced the Levelling Up Premium payment. This ranges between £1,500 to £3,000 and can be claimed by eligible teachers of chemistry, computing, mathematics and physics. When asked about the competitiveness of teacher starting salaries, Schools Minister, Damian Hinds MP reassured us that, for those eligible, the Levelling Up Premium ensures a starting salary above £30,000.⁴⁰ However, we heard that, while more pronounced, the issue of pay competitiveness is not unique to STEM subjects: competitiveness must be maintained across all subjects.

40. Teacher salaries need to be attractive in order to boost recruitment. We welcome the introduction of a £30k starting salary as a step towards improved competitiveness. However, it is clear that this salary will have to be increased in the coming years if it is to remain competitive. Whilst initiatives such as the levelling up premium may help in certain areas, the issue of pay competitiveness will need to be kept under review across the board and both starting salaries and progression must be taken into account.

Teacher pay: recent teacher pay agreements

41. In 2022/23 teachers received an average pay rise of 5.4%. By July 2023 all of the four main school teaching and leadership unions in England had accepted the Government’s 2023/24 pay offer. This amounted to a 6.5% cash-terms increase, which was the increase recommended by the statutory pay body for teachers, the School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB).⁴¹

42. In February 2024 the Department described these recent pay rises as “unprecedented” in the evidence they submitted to the STRB for the 2024/25 pay round. It wrote that it would look for future pay awards to “return to a more sustainable level”.⁴² This reflects the outlook of the Education Secretary’s remit letter for 2024/25, which was published in December 2023.

43. This letter was widely criticised by teaching unions for asking the STRB to “carefully consider the Department’s evidence on the impact of pay rises on schools’ budgets.” The NEU criticised this, saying it was “completely inadequate”, and that the Government was “again attempting to constrain the STRB by forcing it to work within the existing inadequate funding envelope”.⁴³ The ASCL similarly said“the Government must ensure that there is sufficient money available to schools to meet the cost of the pay award that the STRB recommends.”⁴⁴ This echoes what we heard from Paul Whiteman, General Secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers about the underlying issue of insufficient money in the teacher pay system. He told us:

What you cannot get away from in all of this is the lack of money in the pay system. That is the biggest problem. When changes are brought forward… we tend to try to change pay systems without investment.⁴⁵

44. The Department’s most recent Schools Costs Technical Note reports that in 2023–2024 mainstream schools spent 82% of their overall budget on staffing costs, with 52% going towards teachers, and 30% towards other staff.⁴⁶ In 2022–23, mainstream schools also spent 82% of their overall budget on staffing costs however, with 54% going towards teachers and 28% towards other staff. These figures indicate the large extent to which staff costs take up school budgets.

45. We understand the Department’s budgetary pressures. However, in order to compete with other sectors and improve recruitment and retention, teacher pay must keep pace year on year with other comparable sectors. It is also essential that funding to enable the continued competitiveness of teacher salaries does not adversely impact levels of funding elsewhere in the schools budget.

Teacher pay: support staff

46. The 2023/24 pay award did not include support staff because the Department does not have a direct role in setting this pay. Most schools pay support staff according to local government pay scales. These scales are set through negotiations between the Local Government Association (LGA), which represents the employer, and local government trade unions, which represent the employee. In November 2023 support staff unions accepted an offer from the LGA worth 3.88 % for the highest earners and 9.42 % for those at the bottom of the pay scale, equating to a pay rise of at least £1,925.⁴⁷

47. According to analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, this pay deal worked out as an 8% average rise for support staff.⁴⁸ The Department for Education analysis of schools’ costs 2022 to 2024, calculated that every 1 percentage point increase in support staff pay would cost schools £130 million: this suggests that the November 2023 pay deal will cost schools just over £1 billion.⁴⁹ Despite this, additional funding to cover these pay rises is not provided by the Department for Education, putting additional pressure on school budgets.

48. In some cases, this pressure results in the reduction of support staff. For example, the National Association of Head Teachers 2022 pre-autumn budget survey of 1,100 school leaders found that 66% would cut the number of teaching assistants or teaching assistants’ hours to improve the manageability of school budgets.⁵⁰ This is concerning given the important work support staff do to support teachers and reduce their workload. This is a particularly significant challenge at a time when mainstream schools across the system are seeing rising demand to meet special educational needs and have an increasing requirement for teaching assistants to meet it.

49. Though this most recent pay award for support staff was higher on average than the equivalent award for teachers, support staff are paid at a lower level. At our informal roundtable with teachers and headteachers we heard about schools struggling to recruit and retain teaching assistants and support staff. Participants cited low pay and high levels of responsibility, such as supporting children with complex needs, as the two factors contributing to difficulty filling these roles.⁵¹

50. In February 2024 the unions representing support staff asked for a £3,000 or 10% pay rise (whichever figure is highest) for support staff from April 2024. On this request the GMB national officer Sharon Wilde said that “vital school support staff” had to be offered a “decent pay rise”.⁵²

51. We welcome the most recent pay agreement for support staff; however, we have heard persistent concerns that low pay is resulting in difficulty recruiting and retaining staff in these vital roles which help both teachers and pupils and provide essential support to children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).

52. We are also concerned that despite support staff pay increasing additional resource has not been made available to schools from the DfE to fund these increases. We are concerned about the additional pressure this puts on school budgets and that without additional funding from the Department schools are unable to employ the support staff they need.

53. We recommend the Department complete a review into the cumulative impact of excluding funding for support staff pay increases from school funding allocations. Further, going forward, the wage growth of support staff must be factored into school budgets and the Department must allocate sufficient funding to schools to cover the growth of support staff salaries.

54. It is evident that relatively low and uncompetitive pay has been an obstacle to improving teacher recruitment and retention in England. Concern about pay across the public sector has further intensified in recent times with the rising cost of living.⁵³

55. However, it is important to acknowledge that various other factors also influence teacher recruitment and retention in England. This was emphasised by Education Support’s Commission on Teacher Retention which said that pay was “too often … the main prism” through which recruitment and retention issues are viewed, and “any suggestion that salary rises alone will stem the flow of teachers leaving the profession is overly simplistic”.⁵⁴ In the remainder of this chapter, we discuss additional financial incentives for teachers; in subsequent chapters we discuss other factors affecting teacher recruitment and retention, and potential solutions.

Bursaries, scholarships and additional financial incentives

56. The Department’s written submission outlines policy for financial incentives for teachers, saying that:

To encourage talented trainees to apply to train in key subjects with long-standing shortages such as chemistry, computing, mathematics, and physics, the Department has made available an ITT financial incentives package worth up to £181m for trainees starting courses in academic year 2023/24, a £52m increase on the package announced for 2022/23.⁵⁵

57. For some routes (and subjects), the Department offers financial incentives and support with fees, such as bursaries and scholarships. Applicants may be eligible for a bursary if they have a first-class degree, a 2:1, 2:2, PhD or master’s degree. Scholarships are usually available to applicants with a first-class degree, 2:1, master’s or PhD, though in exceptional circumstances they may be awarded to a graduate with a 2:2 and significant relevant experience. For 2023 to 2024, the Department is offering bursaries and scholarships in 10 shortage subjects, ranging in value from £15,000 to £29,000.

Table 3: teacher training bursaries and scholarships

Subject	Bursary	Scholarship
Art and design	_	_
Biology	£20,000	_
Chemistry	£27,000	£29,000
Computing	£27,000	£29,000
Design and technology	£20,000	_
English	£15,000	_
Geography	£25,000	_
Languages (French, German and Spanish)	£25,000	£27,000
Languages (including ancient languages)	£25,000	_
Maths	£27,000	£29,000
Music	_	_
Physics	£27,000	£29,000
Religious education	_	_

Source: Get into teaching

58. The Department’s submission notes that there is “strong evidence that increasing bursaries increases ITT recruitment”, and highlights research from the National Foundation for Educational Research “corroborates DfE analysis that a £1,000 increase in bursary value results in approximately a 3% increase in applicants on average, all other things being equal”.⁵⁶

59. However, we heard varying evidence on the effectiveness of bursaries, both in terms of how they are used in recruitment, and about their impact on teacher retention. The rationale for limiting bursaries to specific subjects was criticised by Jasper Green of the Institute of Education at University College London and Deborah Weston of the National Association of Teachers of Religious Education: both questioned the consistency of this approach as there had been an absence of ITT bursaries for Religious Education until late 2023 despite a “clear shortfall” in teacher recruitment for this subject.⁵⁷⁵⁸

60. We were also told that prospective applicants are deterred from applying to teach subjects with no or low bursaries in favour of subjects they have less interest or background in because of the availability of better bursary support.⁵⁹ The Universities’ Council for the Education of Teachers (UCET) proposed to address this by “levelling out bursary payments across all subjects” so all student teachers receive a standard level of financial support.⁶⁰

61. When asked about the unequal distribution of bursaries Schools Minister, Damian Hinds MP highlighted the importance of targeting “hard to recruit” subjects to ensure the money invested in teacher recruitment is “as productive as possible”. Similarly, Sue Lovelock, Director of Teaching Workforce at the DfE referred to this approach as the “best possible way to maximise value for money”.⁶¹

62. Dr Luke Sibieta of the Institute for Fiscal Studies argued that it was particularly “sensible” to target bursaries to subjects where recruitment issues persist as bursaries are “the one part of teachers’ remuneration over their lifetime where we can vary it by subject”.⁶² Research from the NFER also favours the targeting of bursaries to shortage subjects, concluding that the most cost-effective way of deploying ITT bursaries is to:⁶³

Continue raising bursaries for subjects experiencing supply challenges and where bursaries are low.
Increase bursaries where there is a small or no existing bursary.
Maintain the highest valued bursaries and raise them over time as the level of teachers’ starting salary increases.

We discuss the issues of recruitment and retention in shortage subjects in more detail in Chapter 5.

63. Where available, bursaries and scholarships improve teacher recruitment. We heard strong evidence that bursaries should be targeted where they will be most effective, such as for subjects with longstanding under-recruitment, subjects where demand is expected to increase and subjects that have particularly competitive job markets. However, we also heard concerns about the negative impact of targeted financial incentives on recruitment to teach non-bursary subjects.

64. Bursaries should continue to be targeted according to under-recruitment so the subjects struggling the most with recruitment receive the highest bursaries. However, additionally, the Department should introduce lower bursary offerings for shortage subjects where there is no existing offer alongside continuing to promote non-bursary subjects through broad, above-the-line advertising that focuses on teaching as a vocation more generally.

Incentives to improve retention

65. We also heard throughout the inquiry that it is essential for financial payments to support teacher retention as well as recruitment. This sentiment was well summarised by Professor Becky Allen from Teacher Tapp, who told us, “the goal of all the financial payments has to be to get teachers to year five, because by year five we know that the retention rates are pretty good”.⁶⁴

66. We heard some concern from witnesses about the lack of incentive provided by ITT bursaries for retention, describing the potential for “bursary tourism” where individuals begin teaching for the bursary and then leave the profession after a short amount of time. Some witnesses felt that a ‘golden handcuff’ approach, where teachers remain in the profession for a specific length of time in exchange for a financial incentive (e.g., bursary support, avoiding a financial penalty or student loan forgiveness), would improve teacher retention. Russell Hobby of Teach First told us:

You could target some of the spending [on bursaries] to staying three, five or seven years and link it to regional and local hotspots—schools serving low-income communities.⁶⁵

67. Paul Glaister of the Joint Mathematical Council of the UK made a similar suggestion. When speaking about how to retain “highly professional specialist maths teachers” he suggested efforts increased Early Career Payments or financial penalties to “ensure that people stay in the profession”.⁶⁶

68. However, we were told by the Schools Minister that despite this concern and the principle of phasing bursaries being “legitimate [and] rational,” in reality, there is a “very marginal” difference of one percentage point between the retention of bursary recipient teachers and non-recipient teachers.⁶⁷ Furthermore, research by the Department found that a stricter ‘golden handcuff’ approach with phased bursaries, where the value is higher but money is disbursed over an extended period of time, had mixed results. This approach reduced the attrition of teachers by 37% (equating to 47 maths teachers being retained when they would otherwise have left state school teaching). However, reducing the value of the initial bursary on offer resulted in the overall recruitment to maths ITT reducing by between 10 and 15%. On this, the Schools Minister, Damian Hinds MP, told us that the upfront value of bursaries, or “sticker price”, was important to prospective teachers.⁶⁸

69. Jack Worth of the NFER and Sue Lovelock, Director of Teaching Workforce at the Department for Education, both told us that retention payments already exist through the Levelling Up Premium and Early Career Payment. The Department offers these in addition to bursaries and scholarships for ITT:

The Levelling Up Premium: a bonus payment worth between £1,500 and £3,000 for teachers in schools identified “as having a high need for teachers”. Eligibility is further determined by subject specialism. For 2023 to 2024 eligible subjects are: chemistry, computing, mathematics and physics. From September 2024 payments worth up to £6,000 will be available for science, technology, engineering and maths and certain technical shortage subjects. These payments are disbursed to eligible teachers as three annual bonuses worth between £1,500 and £3,000 during a teacher’s first five years of working.
Early-career payments for teachers: a payment worth between £2,000 and £5,000 may be paid to eligible chemistry, languages, mathematics and physics teachers. The payment amount depends on the subject and year of the ITT course. Teachers in certain local authorities may also be eligible for an uplift payment. This payment can be claimed for the first five years of eligible teachers’ careers, and is disbursed as a lump sum.

70. Teachers can only be eligible for one of the levelling-up premium or early-career payments in any one year. These incentives are all targeted to specific local authorities, as well as subjects. For example, those in receipt of an early career payment teaching in certain local authorities are eligible for an uplift in their payments (payments of £5,000 increase to £7,500 and payments of £2,000 increase to £3,000).⁶⁹ Similarly, education investment areas attract a higher rate of levelling-up premium payment than eligible schools in other areas.⁷⁰ However, the data on subject specific regional shortages is not comprehensive, preventing these retention payments from being even better targeted. This is a limitation that is further explored in chapter 4.

71. We heard from Sue Lovelock that the Early Career Payment and Levelling Up Premium provide “additional retention incentive through the first five years of a teacher’s career”.⁷¹ Jack Worth argued that they “have been effective at retaining more teachers in [shortage] subjects” since their introduction in 2019 and 2021 respectively and told us that given the initial success of retention payments the Department “should be putting much bigger rocket boosters underneath it, certainly in terms of national coverage, arguably also in terms of generosity of each benefit as well”.⁷² He said, however, that it was “too early” to tell whether these payments will suffer from a “postponement effect” where individuals leave once they are no longer eligible for these payments.⁷³

72. Though concern remains about the retention of teachers in receipt of bursary funding, evidence tells us that the current structure of bursaries offers sufficient value for money in terms of recruitment and retention, given that retention rates are similar for those who do and do not receive Initial teacher training (ITT) bursaries. We recommend the Government keep the option of ‘golden handcuffs’ under review and commissions further research on how retention can be improved.

73. We welcome the initial success of existing retention payments such as the Levelling Up Premium and Early Career Payments. The Department should expand the Levelling Up Premium and Early Career Payments according to subject and regional demand. We have heard concerns about the restriction of these payments to Education Investment areas and that they may be needed elsewhere. The eligibility criteria for these payments should be reviewed periodically in order to adapt and respond to shortages; a national roll out of these payments should be considered if they continue to be a success.

74. The Department should also monitor the attrition of those who receive these payments. This would improve understanding of whether there is a “postponement effect” amongst recipients, where they leave the profession once these payments stop.

3 Alternative routes into teaching

75. There are a range of other routes into teaching in addition to postgraduate ITT including university-led undergraduate routes, School Direct salaried and unsalaried, School-Centred initial teacher training (SCITT), Teach First, and Postgraduate Teaching Apprenticeships.⁷⁴ The Department describes these as “a range of specialist programmes to encourage and support trainees from diverse backgrounds”.⁷⁵ The Department told us that approximately 50% of all teachers become ‘newly qualified’ through alternative routes each year.

76. However, during our informal roundtable with teachers and school leaders we were told about a lack of visibility and awareness of the range of routes into teaching. This was particularly the case for those without family or friends in the profession, who may have less understanding of and insight into the various routes. Though the range of options was seen as positive, it was widely felt that the “current recruitment landscape was producing confusion about options and what routes might be best”.⁷⁶

77. Initial teacher training providers also told us about the need to improve communication from the Department. Dr Annabel Watson, Senior Lecturer in Language Education, University of Exeter, which provides ITT to the majority of Southwest England, emphasised to us the importance of clarifying different routes and their structure so individuals can identify the “best fit for the[ir] different needs and motivations”.⁷⁷

78. We have heard that there remains a lack of awareness and understanding about the variety of routes into teaching and what routes into teaching are most appropriate for prospective teacher trainees. The Department should improve communication around the different routes into teaching with a particular focus on clarifying what these routes entail and what applicants they are best suited for.

Non-graduate routes

79. Much of the Government’s recruitment strategy focuses on new graduates. However, we heard throughout this inquiry about the untapped potential within other groups such as non-graduates, non-teacher school staff, career changers, ex-military personnel and international teachers and how teacher recruitment can be bolstered by such groups. Russell Hobby of Teach First told us, “the more different approaches there are that suit different needs… the better”.⁷⁸

80. The Department’s recruitment efforts currently focus heavily on new graduates. However more needs to be done to encourage recruitment from other groups. There should be more and clearer pathways for groups such as non-graduates, former military personnel and those interested in changing their career to teaching at a later stage of their life and returning former teachers who want to return to the role.

Teacher Apprenticeships

81. During our inquiry we heard about the postgraduate teacher apprenticeship launched in 2019. According to Melanie Renowden, CEO of the National Institute of Teaching, this removes the financial barriers to teacher training which would otherwise “prevent particular applicants from progressing into the profession”.⁷⁹ Melanie Renowden told us how this route makes an “important contribution in recruitment into special schools”, as teaching assistants who already have experience in these settings are able to earn and learn simultaneously to become teachers.⁸⁰ Despite this potential, fewer than 1000 people have taken this route into teaching since 2019.

82. Both the National Institute of Teaching and the Schools Minister suggested that this may be the result of limited awareness. The Minister said:

“One thing we need to do is spread awareness of it, both to people potentially going on to the programme and to schools as a way of developing people and getting great teachers into place.”⁸¹

83. In February 2024 the Department for Education announced the development of a non-graduate teaching apprenticeship. According to the Department the “aim of this is to further boost the availability of apprenticeships for aspiring teachers, allowing them to gain a degree and QTS [Qualified Teacher Status] without incurring student debt”.⁸²

84. We welcome the Department’s plan to introduce a non-graduate apprenticeship, specifically for experienced non-teaching staff alongside the existing graduate apprenticeship, as an opportunity to recruit non-graduates who are already working within the education sector into teaching. However, we are concerned that fewer than 1000 people have taken an apprenticeship route into teaching since 2019. Which suggest this remains a minor and specialist route into teaching, given the wider expansion of higher-level apprenticeships we believe there is more scope to expand the use of apprenticeships in growing the teaching workforce.

85. The Department should continue to promote and expand the existing Graduate Teacher Apprenticeship, setting intake targets for each academic year. The Department should also move forward with plans to introduce a non-graduate teaching apprenticeship, specifically for experienced non-teaching staff with further detail on this published by Autumn 2024.

Career changers

86. In the fourth evidence session for this inquiry, we were told about the growing number of people over 50 who are interested in changing their careers to enter teaching. We heard that expressions of interest to Now Teach, an organisation which supports career changers into teaching, have increased by 52% for over-50s and 65% for over-55s. It is clear from what we heard that if certain changes are made, recruitment from this growing pool of talent can be improved.⁸³ Katie Waldegrave of Now Teach described bursaries as a “powerful lever” for recruitment, telling us they are “critically important” for career changers, particularly for those with additional financial responsibilities such as caring and those with mortgages.⁸⁴ We heard, however, that greater stability is necessary in bursaries for career changers, as the decision to switch careers into teaching can take around two years. Changes such as setting bursary values on a multi-year basis and offering more paid routes into teaching would help achieve this.

87. In April 2024 it was reported that the £4.4 million contract for the Now Teach ‘career changer programme’ would not be renewed by the Department for Education for the upcoming 2025 recruitment cycle. Since its creation in 2017 Now Teach has recruited over 1000 professionals into teaching and since 2019 the charity has recruited 107 per cent of its DfE contract total.⁸⁵ Last year the government provided Now Teach with £1.4 million which accounted for around 85 per cent of the scheme’s funding without such funding the future recruitment through this programme will not be possible. This decision by the DfE was heavily criticised. Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the school leaders’ union National Association of Head Teachers, said this decision showed that the Government had “lost all ambition and all innovation if we’re really beginning to cut things like this”.⁸⁶ Similarly, Lord Blunkett, the former education secretary, said “experienced people taking on teaching is an imaginative, effective way to get the high-quality specialist teachers our classrooms so badly need”.⁸⁷

88. Given the extent of the teacher recruitment challenge, in particular the severe shortages being faced in certain secondary school subjects (see chapter 5) the Department should be using all available channels to recruit specialist secondary teachers. The decision to remove funding from Now Teach undermines efforts to improve teacher recruitment.

89. The Department should urgently rethink the decision to cut funding for Now Teach as career changers are an important group that have the potential to positively contribute towards improving secondary teacher numbers. Further, the Department should introduce more paid routes into teaching and a bursary specifically for those making a career change. The value of this bursary should be determined on a multi-year basis to help improve the stability of these routes, benefiting both applicants and Initial Teacher Education providers.

Returning teachers

90. We were told by the Schools Minister about the growing trend of people previously in the teaching profession returning to this work. He described this group of ‘returners’ as a “really big cohort”. For 35% of those entering teaching in 2022, it was not their first time in the profession. This is a group of individuals with large potential and valuable experience, experience that the Minister believes schools should “get the most out of “The Minister also highlighted the role of “relatively small changes [making] a big difference” in terms of attracting and enabling people to return to teaching. This could include changes such as improved flexibility for teachers and changes to school culture or for example, new paid routes into teaching as well as training and bursaries specifically for those returning to the profession. There should also be opportunity for people to return to different roles in teaching, in order to address specific issues. For example, primary school teachers retraining to be secondary school teachers or teachers returning to specialise in shortage subjects.

91. The Department should encourage the return of former teachers into the profession by introducing and promoting specific training and bursary routes for returners. We also recommend that the Department reviews how returning teachers can be used to address current issues in the teacher workforce such as the shortage of secondary school teachers and teachers for specific subjects.

Undergraduate veteran bursaries

92. We are aware of the limited success of undergraduate veteran bursaries which replaced the Troops for Teachers Scheme with only five individuals in receipt of the bursary in the 2022/23 and 2023/24 academic years.⁸⁸ We share the Schools Minister’s recognition of the role this scheme could have in improving recruitment, even if it is one of the smaller routes into teaching. We also share the Minister’s desire to improve uptake of this bursary. However, we have concerns that the eligibility requirements of training to teach secondary biology, chemistry, computing, languages, mathematics or physics may be limiting the reach of the scheme. When questioned on this, the Schools Minister told us of his willingness to “look more at how we do the support, the communication and the discussion of the opportunities that can be there for people who are, for example, leaving the military”.⁸⁹

93. We welcome the Department’s continued efforts to encourage ex-military personnel to enter the teaching profession. We view their experience managing people with differing levels of education as extremely valuable to schools. However, the Department should do more to promote the undergraduate bursary for veterans to increase awareness. Further, the Undergraduate veteran bursary scheme and its subject eligibility criteria should also be reviewed and expanded in order to improve uptake. We also recommend the introduction of a non-graduate route specific to ex-military personnel similar to the Undergraduate veteran bursary scheme.

International teachers

94. In our third evidence session we heard from René Koglbauer, Chair of the Board of Trustees at the Association for Language Learning, who told us about the difficulties of recruiting international teachers for modern foreign languages (MFL) He stated that “prior to Brexit and prior to the teacher supply crisis in Europe, which is currently ongoing as well, we were able to mitigate some of those shortfalls through European teachers coming over who were not able to find positions in their own countries. This has more or less stopped.”⁹⁰ We also heard anecdotal evidence about the decline in numbers of modern foreign language teachers in our informal engagement roundtable.⁹¹ This is a significant concern for us as international teachers and trainees have supported recruitment in key subjects where recruitment targets are continually missed, despite generous financial incentives.

For example:

38% of languages postgraduate trainees in the 2022/23 academic year were international.
11% of STEM postgraduate trainees in the 2022/23 academic year were international.

95. In the case of languages, this limited recruitment is leading to a “vicious cycle”⁹² where schools are reducing their language offering for GCSE and A-Level resulting in fewer students doing language degrees and then fewer pursuing language teaching.

96. The Minister of State for Schools (the Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP) reassured us of the importance of international recruitment to the Department for Education, as well as the potential to integrate international schemes into the recruitment and retention strategy. However, in April 2024 the Department for Education announced changes to the international relocation payment pilot that was launched in September 2023. This pilot was launched with the intention of attracting more established teachers and teacher trainees to live and work in England. Initially, this pilot offered overseas languages and physics teachers and teacher trainees £10,000 and was intended to cover:

The costs of visas
the immigration health surcharge
other relocation expenses

97. Changes announced by the Department in April 2024 mean that teacher trainees in languages or physics training teach in the 2024 to 2025 academic year are no longer eligible for the international relocation payment. Further, that going forward no trainee teachers will be eligible for payment. In addition to removing the eligibility of trainee teachers, the structure of the payment will also change going forward, being split into two £5000 payments as opposed to a lump sum of £10,000.

98. This change has been criticised by the education sector. James Noble-Rogers, executive director of the Universities Council for the Education of Teachers, described it as an “inexplicable decision” that “will make it even more difficult to schools to recruit the languages and physics teachers they so desperately need.”⁹³ There has also been criticism of the short notice for these changes and the damage that this could do for the international reputation of UK Universities who will have made offers to students on the basis that they can expect these payments but then have to explain why they are not able to follow through.

99. We recognise the need to use all available options if teacher recruitment is going to increase in England. This must include international teachers, and efforts should be made to ease the pathway for international teachers to be recruited and to teach in English schools. For the teaching of Modern foreign languages, an E-Bacc subject in which the department has consistently missed its recruitment target, this is an essential part of the teaching recruitment cohort and there appears to be no rationale for cutting it off.

100. We were encouraged by the ‘Apply for Qualified Teacher Status in England’ digital service launched in February 2023. We would like an update and review of the success of this service in response to this report.

101. We are disappointed about recent changes to the international relocation payment which will exclude trainee teachers from the 2024 and 2025 academic years. We viewed this payment as a positive intervention to encourage the recruitment and training of international teachers in key subjects and do not view this decision as a step in the right direction. We urge the Department to review this decision and reevaluate the scheme’s potential to help in providing high quality teachers in our schools. In particular, we are concerned about the late notice given for this change and urge the Department to work closely with Universities to ensure that no students on their way to qualify as teachers in shortage subjects are lost as a result of this At a minimum, this change should not apply retrospectively and international candidates accepted prior to April 3rd 2024 should be able to continue on to their studies in September 2024 with these payments.

102. The Department must also collaborate with other relevant government Departments to ensure routes and pathways into teaching for international teachers remain open, attractive, and easy to navigate.

4 Training and professional development

103. In March 2022 the Department for Education published the White Paper on ‘Delivering World Class Teacher Development’.⁹⁴ This introduced the concept of teacher development as a ‘golden thread’ where “training and development [is] available through the entirety of a teacher’s career” through initial teacher training, the early career framework and the National Professional Qualification programme. This chapter examines recent developments in these areas of professional development.

ITT market review

104. In January 2021 the Department appointed an expert group to review the ITT market. The aim of this review was to ensure that:

all trainees receive high-quality training
the ITT market maintains the capacity to deliver enough trainees and is accessible to candidates
the ITT system benefits all schools

105. The expert group’s report⁹⁵ was published in July 2021, with recommendations including:

A new set of quality requirements for all ITT providers, with a “robust accreditation process” to ensure all providers can meet these requirements;
ITT providers should develop an evidence-based training curriculum as a condition of accreditation;
Providers should deliver intensive placement experience of at least 4 weeks for single-year courses.

Since this report there have been two rounds of reaccreditation against the quality requirements. However, this process has been described as “highly controversial”.⁹⁶ We were told by the UCET that this review “de-stabilised the country’s teacher supply base”⁹⁷ as some providers were de-accredited as a part of this process. We heard a similar sentiment from Dr Mary Bousted, Joint General Secretary of the National Education Union who told us:

There is a whole other, very sorry story about the reaccreditation process, the market review and the way that that has left higher education institutions. Why you would embark on that, with such poor outcomes, when you are hitting a teacher recruitment and retention crisis is beyond me.

Analysis from the Education Policy Institute found:

In 2022/23 there were 28,797 trainees at 226 ITT providers
The 68 de-accredited ITT providers trained 16% (4,491 trainees) of the ITT 2022/23 cohort
for 2024/25 the Department has confirmed accreditation for 179 providers (21 of which did not provide ITT last year)
Of the de-accredited ITT providers none of those who appealed the DfE’s decision were successful.⁹⁸

106. However, these numbers do not necessarily mean that provision or ITT capacity has decreased as new providers were accredited and de-accredited providers are able to form partnerships with accredited providers. For example, while there was concern about how accreditation outcomes would impact on ITT provision in Cumbria when the University of Cumbria was de-accredited, the University continues to serve the region as it is partnered with the University of Warwick (which is accredited). The Minister of State for Schools (the Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP) told us:

We have so far accredited 179 providers to operate in 2024–25, which is a very significant number. For those that have not been re-accredited, we are encouraging them to look at partnerships with others, and I know that a number of those partnerships are already taking shape.⁹⁹

107. A variety of witnesses expressed concern about the emergence of regional “cold spots”¹⁰⁰¹⁰¹ where multiple providers in the same region were de-accredited. For example, Dr Jasper Green, Head of Initial Teacher Education at UCL Institute of Education, told us:

how it [the ITT review] was done as a paper exercise, was very problematic for providers. Not seeing first-hand the quality of the provision has undermined some of the work that the market review was trying to do and has left us with cold spots, and those providers who were not accredited have gone on to get praise from Ofsted.¹⁰²

108. The emergence of “cold spots” risked the exacerbation of regional disparities in teacher shortages. However, though the review process and subsequent de-accreditation has different regional impacts (see the table in Figure 5 below) initial analysis by the NFER found that:

the worst fears of lost capacity have not been realised and that the capacity new providers bring is likely to significantly soften the losses from the few providers which have closed.¹⁰³

Region	Not accredited	Accredited
South West	29.9% (622)	70.1% (1455)
North East	29.2% (371)	70.8% (899)
East of England	28.4% (592)	71.6% (1496)
Yorkshire and The Humber	17.5% (582)	82.5% (2751)
North West	15.6% (722)	84.4% (3893)
South East	14.4% (577)	85.6% (3440)
London	10.3% (629)	89.7% (5458)
West Midlands	7.8% (244)	92.2% (2897)
East Midlands	7.0% (152)	93.0% (2017)

Figure 5: ITT recruitment in 2022/23 by region and 2024/24 accreditation status¹⁰⁴

109. We are pleased that initial concerns that the initial teacher training review would result in ‘cold spots’ and further disparities have not come to fruition. We welcome the use of partnerships to allow de-accredited providers to merge with accredited providers in their region and we are happy with the growth of new providers entering the market. The Department should continue to monitor the impact of the ITT reviews to ensure that regional capacity and the provision of Initial Teacher Education is sufficient.

110. In June 2023 this year it was reported that ITT had been instructed by the Department to reject fewer applicants after a 7% increase in applications did not result in an equivalent increase in offers for places on ITT courses.¹⁰⁵ However, ITE providers told us that “the focus needs to be on quality and not quantity”, and that it is important that ITE providers “maintain the gates to the profession”.¹⁰⁶ Further, providers assured us that all rejections were warranted and due to a “mismatch” of skills.¹⁰⁷ We shared ITE providers’ views about the need to maintain quality by attracting high quality applicants and retaining existing trainees with the Schools Minister. He told us:

We want the brightest and the best to come into teaching because they are the ones who are then going to instruct and inspire the next generation. The Department for Education does not decide which individuals come into teaching; that is rightly a decision for teacher training colleges—providers. What we can help with is publicising and communicating as much as possible this opportunity, so that really high calibre people apply. We have probably the most talented generation of teachers ever and our job is to keep that being so.¹⁰⁸

111. We recognise the need to get more people onto ITT courses; however, this should not be achieved by compromising on quality, and ITT providers should continue to uphold high entry standards. The Department should continue publicising teaching as a profession through broad advertising that focuses on teaching as a vocation more generally in order to attract high quality candidates.

Early career framework

112. The Early Career Framework (ECF) was “at the centre” of the Department’s 2019 recruitment and retention strategy.¹⁰⁹ The ECF offers early career teachers “funded entitlement to a structured 2-year package of high-quality development”. We were told by Becky Allen that “ultimately, the first two years of your career are incredibly difficult” as a teacher: the ECF aims to support and retain teachers during this time.¹¹⁰

The ECF was rolled out nationally in September 2021, and the full package includes:

Funded 5% off timetable time in the second year of teaching, in addition to the existing 10% in the first year;
A range of high-quality, freely available curricula and training materials underpinned by the ECF;
Funded training for mentors of early career teachers (ECTs);
Funded time for mentors to support ECTs.

A policy paper by the Department (published in January 2019) gives further information on the purpose and content of the ECF:

The ECF supports early career teacher (ECT) development in five core areas (behaviour management, pedagogy, curriculum, assessment and professional behaviours);
It is aligned with the eight Teachers’ Standards, although it is not an assessment framework;
The evidence that underpins the ECF is not static and “research insights develop and progress”; consequently, the ECF will be kept under review.¹¹¹

113. We were told by Jack Worth of the NFER that it is too early to conclude whether the impact of the ECF on teacher recruitment and retention has been positive.¹¹² The Department’s initial review paints a mixed picture, concluding that “all groups continued to be more positive than negative about their ECF-based induction experience in terms of helpfulness and overall satisfaction” but also identifying the framework’s “rigidity … relevance, and challenges around work and time commitment” as “main areas for improvement”.¹¹³We heard similarly views on the success of the ECF from our witnesses. Professor Becky Allen told us:

The question is whether we believe the early career framework is supportive and helpful as opposed to burdensome. The evidence on it at the moment is rather mixed.¹¹⁴

114. The main issues with the ECF were summarised by Dr Annabel Watson, Senior Lecturer in Language Education at the University of Exeter, who told us that the ECF was “repetitive… overly prescriptive and standardised… not really responding as flexibly as it could do to the different needs of different teachers.”¹¹⁵

Repetition

115. Russell Hobby of Teach First highlighted that some content from ITT is repeated in the ECF. He told us that “there is too much duplication”.¹¹⁶ Similarly, quoting from the National Education Union’s early career teachers’ group, Mary Bousted told us:

Early career teachers are telling us a lot of material in the early career framework is very repetitive of what they have done in the initial teacher training. Going over basic concepts, which they feel they already understand.¹¹⁷

116. In our oral evidence session with the Department, this was acknowledged by Sue Lovelock, Director of Teaching Workforce, who told us:

We have had clear feedback that there is a bit of repetition we need to strip out, so that is something we are actively doing … to improve that experience for teachers in their early years… In practical terms, it is looking at the core content for initial teacher training and for the early career framework, and looking at areas where there is duplication between the two, so working very practically with stakeholders.¹¹⁸

Lack of subject specificity

117. The lack of subject specificity within the ECF was highlighted to us throughout the inquiry. In written evidence Teacher Tapp recalled complaints from teachers that the “[ECF] materials didn’t focus enough on their specific subjects”.¹¹⁹ Professor Becky Allen echoed this, describing the ECF as a “one-size-fits-all system”.¹²⁰

118. Similar concerns about the limited specificity of the ECF were raised by individual subject associations. Hari Rentala, Head of Learning and Skills at the Institute of Physics told us that “half of science teachers felt the [ECF] resources should be more adapted to their subject”.¹²¹Similarly, NATRE told us that two thirds of the RE teachers they surveyed on the ECF rated the framework ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ in terms of subject coverage.¹²²

Inflexibility

119. We were also told about the need for flexibility within the ECF. Mary Bousted, Joint General Secretary of the National Education Union, explained that because ECT have different needs and areas they need support with, the NEU professionals group for ECT told her that “the ECF needs more flexibility and needs to give more trust in mentors to make choices on the timing of the topics”.¹²³

Mentoring

120. Those involved in the ECF expressed concerns about the increased workload triggered by the ECF. UCL IOE’s submission states that there are issues with the “additional workload generated in the context of already heavy demands on school staff”¹²⁴ as a result of the ECF.

121. The Department’s written evidence to the inquiry admits that “mentors continue to find it challenging to balance their mentoring commitments alongside their workload”.¹²⁵ This was echoed by Julie McCulloch, Director of Policy at the Association of School and College Leaders, who told us “we know that 61% of mentors have said they found it difficult to find the time that they know their mentees need in order to succeed in that programme”¹²⁶. Further, despite the fact the ECF package includes funded time for mentors to support Early Career Teachers, Teacher Tapp told us that nearly half of mentors they surveyed reported that they had not been given additional non-teaching time to compensate for their responsibilities as ECF mentors.¹²⁷ Dr Roach told us that this indicates the need for further investment in time.¹²⁸

122. We were told that the additional workload introduced by the ECF for mentors has been having a knock-on impact on the willingness and ability of schools to offer trainee teachers placements.¹²⁹

123. Dr Jasper Green, Head of ITE at UCL Institute of Education, told us:

mentor workload is something that we know is a challenge, both in relation to ITE market reforms and ECF. We are seeing first-hand the challenges that is having on availability of placements for our student teachers. You are in danger of entering a cycle where mentor workload is high, which prevents schools offering high-quality placements, which then further adds to the teacher recruitment and retention crisis you are trying to address.¹³⁰

124. Despite these challenges witnesses understood the significance of the ECF and were confident that in time, if the Department was responsive to feedback, such issues would be resolved. Russell Hobby, CEO of Teach First, told us “I also do not think that we should underestimate that this is one of the most significant changes to early career development in the sector in a decade or more. It is going to take a bit of tweaking to get it right.”¹³¹

125. Criticisms of the Early Career Framework such as repetition, lack of subject focus and the additional burden for mentors need to be addressed. We welcome action which has already been taken by the Department to tackle these issues, including reviewing the content of the Framework and removing duplicated material.

126. The Department should continue to consult and engage with teachers for feedback on the Early Career Framework. We recommend that the content of the Early Career Framework is reviewed annually by the Department, and that duplicate material continues to be removed. The Department should also work with providers to develop and expand the subject specific elements of the Early Career Framework.

127. For the mentoring aspect of the ECF we recommend that more time and resources are given to mentors, in order for them to provide early career teachers with the necessary time and support. Mentoring provides a key strength of the framework, but retention of experienced mentors will be key to its long-term success.

Continued professional development, national professional qualification and progression

128. In addition to training and support in the early stages of a teacher’s career through the ECF, it is important that teachers receive continued professional development (CPD). We were told by The Schools, Students and Teachers Network that continued development opportunities are beneficial for teachers’ wellbeing and confidence:

Providing teachers at all stages of their careers with the time to engage in continued study, promoting lifelong learning, signposting excellent CPD and networking opportunities… are some of the ways we can demonstrate that we value the teachers in our schools and, hopefully, contribute to their positive wellbeing as confident, invigorated professionals.¹³²

129. Schools Minister Damian Hinds specifically highlighted the role of CPD in promoting teacher retention, telling us “later in careers, part of retention in the profession is through NPQs and general continuing professional development.”¹³³ However, we were told that currently CPD is not necessarily done well and that this undermines teacher engagement with it. Jack Worth, School Workforce Lead at the NFER told us:

Teachers are not that interested in it [CPD], probably driven by the low quality of the professional development that broadly, on the whole, they are experiencing at the moment. Inset days, doing general activities, which are not very relevant or related to teachers’ activities is not making them better or making them feel valued. High-quality CPD is a different issue but, in terms of what they are currently experiencing, more is not exactly desired.¹³⁴

130. The process of defining what high quality CPD entails is not easy and requires further research. Professor Becky Francis CBE, CEO of the Education Endowment Foundation, told us that finding a shared definition of high quality CPD is “notoriously difficult” and is one of the “big challenges” for future research to establish.¹³⁵

131. In autumn 2021, the Department introduced a new and updated set of National Professional Qualifications (NPQs) with the aim of improving the CPD on offer to teachers. Through £184m funding from the Covid recovery plan the Department was able to offer NPQs to teachers for free with the aim to provide 150,000 qualifications between 2021 and 2024. Currently, around 100,000 NPQs have been completed. Sue Lovelock told us, “NPQs are [a] really important part of our framework for CPD for all teachers”.¹³⁶ The new NPQs included:

Box 2: New National Professional Qualifications (NPQs)

NPQs for leadership

Senior leadership

Headship

Executive leadership

Early years leadership

Special educational needs and disabilities co-ordinators (SENcos) NPQ

Specialist NPQs

Leading teacher development

Leading teaching

Leading behaviour and culture

Leading literacy

Leading primary mathematics

Source: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-professional-qualification-npq-courses

132. In the 2021/22 academic year 29,425 teachers and school leaders, representing 5.7% of the teaching workforce, took part in these DfE-funded NPQs.

133. An interim report evaluating the new NPQ programme was published in January 2023. The Department’s interim report found that:

Overall participants were satisfied with the NPQ qualifications and felt that they met their needs and expectations.
The majority of participants would recommend the qualification to teachers
Specialist NPQ participants had higher levels of course. satisfaction in comparison to Leadership NPQ participants.
NPQ participants deemed the learning materials to be of high quality, and although not offered by all providers, participants highly valued coaching.

134. We heard from Richard Gill, Chair of the Teaching School Hubs Council that the reformed NPQs “first and foremost” provide a “universal offer of a leadership development route to all schools”.¹³⁷ The interim evaluation of NPQs however found that the introduction of specialist NPQs has also provided new opportunities and avenues of focus, saying:

The introduction of the specialist NPQs has led to participants feeling highly motivated to undertake a qualification because it supported their professional interests and focused on deepening their knowledge and expertise, rather than solely focusing on leadership.¹³⁸

This indicates that that introduction of such subject specific CPD is enabling teachers to “look up and look out”¹³⁹ for progression and development opportunities that are not limited to leadership or management. The importance of the subject specific, specialist NPQs was evidence by Katie Waldegrave MBE, CEO of Now Teach who told us that though the “majority”¹⁴⁰ of teachers want opportunities to progress, increasing their status and pay while remaining classroom teachers there is not an “obvious” path to do so in England.¹⁴¹ We recognise specialist NPQs as a positive step towards establishing a clear path of progression for those who want to remain classroom teachers.

135. However, as with the ECF, we were told that the issue of capacity undermines engagement with CPD. Professor Glaister told the Committee “you cannot have professional development opportunities if you have a shortage of teachers, because they cannot be released [from teaching]”.¹⁴² Along similar lines, Professor Becky Allen, Co-founder of Teacher Tapp, told us:

Are you asking why teachers rarely take time out from the school day to attend professional development courses? It is really expensive, not least the supply cover, more than anything, and it is disruptive for students. We do not have a model that has space for provision.¹⁴³

136. Furthermore, despite being told about the importance of NPQs by the Department in our oral evidence session with the Schools Minister in late 2023. In March 2024 the Department announced that due to the end of catch-up funding for NPQs will be restricted from Autumn 2024 and only provided to teachers and school leaders from the following groups:

the 50% of schools with the highest proportion of students who attract pupil premium funding
16 to 19 educational settings identified as having high disadvantage.

Funding will also remain in place for the leading primary maths, special educational needs co-ordinator’s (SENco) and headship NPQs regardless of what schools individuals teach at.

137. The opportunity to partake in continuing professional development (CPD) is crucial to teacher retention; we recognise, however, that pressure of workload and lack of spare time limits teachers’ engagement with CPD. We consider issues relating to teachers’ workload further in chapter 6.

138. We also recognise that cost can prevent teachers from engaging with continuing professional development continuing professional development. Consequently, we are concerned about the announcement that from Autumn 2024 funding for National professional qualifications (NPQs) will only be provided to teachers and school leaders at select schools. We urge the Department to rethink this decision to restrict funding for NPQs which can benefit teachers in every school, and we recommend that this decision is reversed so that funding is reinstated for all teachers to be able to benefit from NPQs. Further, we recommend that the Department creates standalone funding for NPQs so this is not reliant on temporary programmes such as the Department’s catch-up programme.

139. We understand that when continuing professional development (CPD) is exclusively focused on leadership teacher retention can be undermined as teachers unwilling to take up such roles have limited opportunities for promotion or progression. We welcome the move towards more subject specific National professional qualifications (NPQs) as well as the NPQ for special educational needs co-ordinator’s that will be available from Autumn 2024.

140. The Department should build on improvements in its continuing professional development (CPD) offering and there should be more scope in the system for teachers to gain and maintain seniority through subject specialism. The Department should expand its subject specific National professional qualifications (NPQ) offering beyond numeracy and literacy and establish clearer career progression pathways for teachers who want to focus on and develop within their subject, for example as head of subject within a year group or subject lead across their school. We would recommend that the Department consider further NPQs for subject leaders with cross disciplinary application such as heads of science or languages.

5 Subject specific teacher shortages

141. It is clear that issues with recruitment and retention have led to a teacher shortage. However, the impact of teacher shortages is not evenly distributed between phases of education or subjects, with some being worse affected than others. Shortages mainly affect secondary schools and hard to recruit subjects. The most recent Initial Teacher Training Census found that for 2023/24:

96% of the ITT recruitment target for primary subjects was met (up from 91% in 2022/23)
50% of the ITT recruitment target for secondary subjects was met (down from 57% in 2022/23)¹⁴⁴

142. The Department’s written evidence acknowledges the disproportionate impact of teacher shortages on secondary subjects, saying:

Whilst targets in primary have been exceeded in 3 of the last 5 years, recruitment to meet some secondary targets has been more challenging … Performance varies by secondary subject. Some subjects such as History, Classics and PE attract strong interest and regularly perform above target, but others including Design and Technology, Physics and Modern Foreign Languages regularly under-perform against targets.¹⁴⁵

143. Further, data showing the percentage of initial teacher training (ITT) recruitment target reached by subject in 2023/24is provided in the Initial Teacher Training Census:¹⁴⁶

Table 4: Postgraduate initial teacher training new entrants, targets and % of target reached by subject

Subject	PGITT new entrants	PGITT Target	% of target reached
Business Studies	190	1195	15.9
Physics	487	2820	17.27
Other	572	2550	22.431
Music	216	790	27.342
Design & Technology	580	2110	27.488
Modern Foreign Languages	1023	2985	34.271
Computing	421	1170	35.983
Art & Design	364	825	44.121
Total Science	2244	5065	44.304
Religious Education	291	655	44.427
Secondary	13369	26360	50.717
Geography	836	1485	56.296
Mathematics	1893	2960	63.953
Chemistry	776	1195	64.937
English	2276	3035	74.992
Total	26955	35540	75.844
Biology	981	1050	93.429
History	960	800	120
Primary	13586	9180	148
Physical Education	1503	735	204.49

Source: Department for Education written evidence (TTR0148)

144. This tells us that 10 subjects did not reach 50% of their recruitment target in 2023/24, including: physics, computing, RE, DT and MFL. Twelve subjects did not reach 70% of their recruitment target in 2023/24, including mathematics.

145. In 2022/23 90% of the maths recruitment target was reached. However, the target had been reduced 2,040 in that year, compared to 2,800 in 2021/22, despite the target in the preceding year being missed. Professor Glaister of the Joint Mathematical Council of the UK told us that he “looked and [he] could not understand” why the target had been changed. Professor Glaister went further, saying that the decision to reduce the maths recruitment target “certainly points out that we do not have a long-term strategy”¹⁴⁷ for the recruitment of maths teachers. In pursuit of better understanding the rationale of this decision we asked the Minister for written correspondence: the Department told us that “maths remains a priority subject” and that:

When setting the 2022/23 maths target, the calculation factored in not meeting the maths recruitment targets in 2020/21 and 2021/22 (84% and 90% respectively). However, the impact of not meeting these previous targets was more than offset by forecasted increases in the numbers of PGITT trainees, returners, and teachers that are new to the state-funded sector being recruited. Furthermore, there was an increase in the proportion of mathematics trainees entering the workforce immediately after ITT. The net result of all these factors was a reduction in the 2022/23 maths PGITT target.¹⁴⁸

146. We do not believe that the Department’s decision to reduce the PGITT recruitment target for maths teachers between the 2021/22 and 2022/23 academic years was justified given the importance and priority the Government has given to maths. Government plans to make maths education compulsory until the age of 18 will inevitably increase demand for maths teachers so the reality of the challenge to recruit maths teachers must be acknowledged and appropriately acted upon.

147. Targets for maths and other shortage subjects should not be reduced unless the shortage is reversed, and recruitment targets are met, over a sustained period of time. Considering Government plans for compulsory until the age of 18 the maths target must be increased substantially unless the Government can set out other plans for delivering functional or practical mathematics through an alternative cohort of teachers.

Retention issues in shortage subjects

148. In addition to under-recruitment, limited retention is also contributing to subject specific teacher shortages. At our oral evidence session with various subject associations, we were told:

About 40% to 50% of early career physics teachers were likely to leave during the first five years.¹⁴⁹
Around 30% to 40% of RE teachers were likely to leave in the next five years.¹⁵⁰
40% of MFL teachers were likely to leave in the next five years.¹⁵¹

These levels of attrition are similar to the average rates of attrition for teachers. In 2022 a survey by the National Education Union found that 44% of teachers in England were planning to quit within five years.¹⁵²

149. These estimates were calculated internally by subject associations because there is no publicly available government data on attrition by subject. The associations agreed that better data on teacher attrition by subject is needed and that such data should be collected by the government. Associations which did not have estimated data on attrition emphasised that, despite this, they knew that “retention is a huge issue” from engagement with teachers and schools.¹⁵³ Damian Hinds, the Schools Minister, agreed on the importance of retention for shortage subjects, and told us it was “critical” to “not just getting people into the profession but [also to] retain experience and keep talent in these roles.”¹⁵⁴

150. High attrition rates in shortage subjects mean that a two-pronged approach is needed to address subject specific teacher shortages. This should look at the retention of existing teachers in addition to the recruitment of new teachers. Reliable data on the number of teachers leaving by subject and the reason for their departure are also needed, to better understand attrition rates.

151. The Department should collect and publish data on the attrition of teachers by subject, particularly those in their first 5 years of teaching. Data should also be collected on the reason teachers are leaving, to improve understanding of why particular subjects are experiencing higher attrition than others and to help target retention strategies as effectively as possible.

What is the impact of subject specific shortages?

152. One impact of a shortage of teachers in a particular subject is the prevalence of teachers teaching specialist subjects without the relevant qualification. Schools Minister, Damian Hinds told us that the Department for Education “want specialist teachers to be teaching subjects where possible”.¹⁵⁵ However, the table below (Table 5) shows that this is not always an option.

Table 5: percentage of hours taught by teacher with qualification and percentage of teachers with qualification by subject

Subject	Percentage of hours taught by teacher with qualification	Percentage of teachers with qualification
Physical education	96.9	89.7
Art and design	96.3	87.2
Combined/General science	95.1	89.6
Music	94.7	81.1
Biology	93.3	89.2
History	93.3	78.7
English	92.1	82.2
Geography	88.6	68.8
English Baccalaureate	87.4	79.1
Mathematics	87.2	78.6
Other Sciences	86.1	85.2
Other/Combined Technology	84.7	81.2
Chemistry	83.2	74.1
Business / Economics	81.8	65.3
Drama	81.7	61.2
German	79.5	70.5
Design and Technology - Resistant Materials	79	75.6
French	79	71.7
All design and technology	78.7	71.7
Design and Technology - Electronics/Systems and Control	76.9	67.7
Design and Technology – Textiles	74.3	67.3
Religious Education	74.2	45.6
Design and Technology - Food Technology	73	66.5
Physics	72.5	57.6
Design and Technology - Graphics	70.8	66.6
ICT	68.3	52.6
Spanish	61.9	51.2
Other Modern Languages	57.4	50.7
Computing	54.1	39.5
Media Studies	40.7	27.7
Citizenship	21.1	8.5
Engineering	20.1	16.7

Source: School workforce census https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/data-tables/permalink/70364cdd-1c57–4e12–76d3–08db997aeba0

153. The definition of a teacher’s subject specialism is complicated. The Department for Education determines this according to a teacher’s post-A level qualifications. This includes their degree and teaching qualification; However, we understand that this can be an oversimplification.¹⁵⁶ Hari Rentala from the Institute of Physics told us there needs to be a “nuanced discussion” about what constitutes a subject specialist. He said:

Using degree as an indicator is a blunt instrument and is not necessarily the most helpful way of thinking about things, especially when you are thinking about specialists teaching up to GCSE.¹⁵⁷

154. The school workforce census (most recently published in June 2023) includes information on subjects taught in secondary schools. The table below shows the percentage of hours taught by teachers with a relevant qualification for various subjects, and the percentage of teachers for each subject who have a relevant post-A level qualification in 2022/23. In our final evidence session, we heard from the Schools Minister about the “obvious” desire for these numbers to be “as high as possible”.¹⁵⁸

155. The use of non-specialist teachers to teach specialist subjects is most prevalent in schools struggling with their overall recruitment and retention: it is one of the first ways schools attempt to mitigate the impact of general teacher shortages. Research by the NFER found:

The data, covering schools in England, shows that among secondary schools finding teacher recruitment the most difficult, 62 per cent reported at least ‘some’ maths lessons being taught by non-specialists, 55 per cent for physics and 26 per cent for Modern Foreign Languages (MFL). This compares to 28 per cent for maths, 29 per cent for physics and 14 per cent for MFL in the schools that reported finding teacher recruitment the least difficult.¹⁵⁹

The NFER argues that the use of non-specialist teachers has “a detrimental impact on pupils’ education and learning” in a variety of ways. For example, we heard that this undermines the quality of teaching in schools, sometimes resulting in changes to a school’s curriculum and the subjects made available to pupils and reducing pupils’ desire to carry on with subjects as they progress through education.

Quality of teaching and learning

156. Subject specific teacher shortages affect the quality of teaching received by pupils at particular points in their educational journey. Where there is a shortage of teachers for a specific subject, the most qualified teachers are diverted to teaching at levels where pupils undergo formal assessment such as GCSE and A-Levels. We were told by Protect Pure Maths that because the “stakes are higher”, these levels are prioritised sometimes at the expense of Key Stage 3 learning.¹⁶⁰

157. We also heard that non-specialist teachers can undermine the quality of teaching for particular subjects. Ryan Ball, director of education at the Design and Technology Association, told us that with “a higher number than ever of non-specialists teaching design and technology”, a very practical subject, there are “huge issues” with quality including, health and safety issues.¹⁶¹ Deborah Weston, research officer at the National Association of Teachers of Religious Education told us teacher shortages have an “obvious” impact on standards and quality that, “risks pupils receiving stereotypical or inaccurate education on religious beliefs”.¹⁶² Similarly, René Koglbauer of the Association for Language Learning told us that the assumption and expectation that modern foreign languages teachers can teach any modern foreign language rather than the specific language that is their specialism undermines quality. Though these teachers can use their existing skills, often they simply possess “knowledge [for a] particular lesson rather than within the full language knowledge and cultural knowledge that [a specialist would have]”.¹⁶³

Reduction of subject provision

158. Subject specific teacher shortages can also result in the reduction of subject provision. We were told by Deborah Weston OBE of the National Association of Teachers of RE that the shortage of RE teachers is forcing headteachers to make “very hard choices” about the provision of the subject. She told us it is “increasingly the case” that the subject is either removed from the timetable completely, with 22% of schools reporting zero hours of RE at year 11 despite the subject being compulsory up to age 18 or, is combined with another subject. She said that this does “a disservice to RE and also to that other subject”.¹⁶⁴

159. Dr Watson of the University of Exeter told us “we know that schools that do not have physics teachers are less likely to offer triple science at GCSE”.¹⁶⁵ This was also found in the National Foundation for Educational Research report on teacher supply and shortages which found that a lack of specialist science teachers, in addition to other factors such as pupil interest and accountability measures, have resulted in a partial or no offering of triple science in some schools.¹⁶⁶ They found that schools which did not offer triple science to any pupils cited teacher shortages as the most significant reason, while schools who offered triple science to a select number of students cited pupil interest as the reason for this partial offering.

Figure 6: Pupil interest was the most significant reason why triple science wasn’t offered, while teacher supply affected the schools that didn’t offer triple science at all the most

Pupils not continuing with subjects

160. Additionally, we heard about subject specific shortages resulting in pupils not continuing with the affected subject at higher levels of education. When telling us about the reduction of triple science offers in schools with a shortage of specialist science teachers Dr Watson of the University of Exeter noted that triple science is “the main route for going into STEM careers, so there is quite a significant impact from losing those particular specialisms”.¹⁶⁷

161. We also received written evidence from Protect Pure Maths which highlighted how poor-quality teaching and a negative experience of Maths due to teaching by non-specialist teachers can undermine pupils’ ability and desire to study Maths at higher education levels. They argued:

Those who do not achieve a good pass, or have a negative experience of maths at school, are more likely to drop out of the ‘excellence stream’, meaning they are much less likely to go on to study maths at A Level or in Further Education. They are therefore inadvertently locked out of the system and denied the multiple opportunities that education and qualifications in STEM can offer in the long-term.¹⁶⁸

162. Similarly, Hari Rentala told us that the schools with “poor progression rates” for physics would often have one or no specialist physics teachers. This is driving regional disparities within subjects. The Institute for Physics told us:

70% of A-level physics students come from just 30% of schools. Looking deeper into the numbers, we think around 300 schools more likely to be from deprived areas send no one at all on to A-level physics.¹⁶⁹

163. We have significant concerns about the negative impacts of subject specific teacher shortages. These include compromising the quality of teaching where subjects are being taught by teachers without subject expertise and the reduction of subject provision where schools do not have sufficient specialist teaching capacity. We also heard that lack of specialist teachers can have an adverse impact on take up of certain subjects. This is evidenced by modern foreign languages having the lowest take up by pupils when compared to other English Baccalaureate (EBacc) subjects. Out of the 86.2% of pupils who entered four of the five EBacc components 88.9% were missing the languages component in 2022/23.¹⁷⁰¹⁷¹

Subject shortages at a regional level

164. Though we understand and heard the anecdotal evidence about regional differences in subject specific shortages from subject associations, as mentioned in Chapter 2 there is no Government data available on this. Deborah Weston of NATRE told us about the need for more data on the “regional variations” of recruitment and retention for specific subjects in order to “help … understand the situation”.¹⁷² We were also told by the Institute of Physics that without this data “recruitment targets for subjects are only managed at the national level, with limited frame of reference for targets to be managed at a regional level”.¹⁷³ Currently, eligibility for the Early Career and Levelling Up Premium payments is in-part determined by region. However, better data on how subject specific teacher shortages manifest regionally would allow such financial incentives to be more targeted.

165. We know subject specific and regional teacher shortages persist and we acknowledge the Department’s interventions to address this. However, we have heard that there is limited data and understanding of how these shortages interact and where they overlap. Further analysis is needed to better target financial incentives, Initial Teacher Education provision and the Early Career Framework mentor programme.

166. The Department should collect and publish data on regional subject shortages in teacher supply. This data should be used to inform the expansion of financial incentives such as the Early Career Payment and Levelling Up Premium according to where there are overlaps in regional and subject shortages.

What is driving subject specific shortages?

167. The factors driving subject specific shortages will in many cases act as barriers to recruitment and retention across the board. We were told, however, that they may impact some subjects in unique ways.

Financial incentives and pay

168. The value of financial incentives such as bursaries can contribute to subject specific shortages as well as the relatively low pay of teaching compared to some sectors. The Institute of Physics highlighted to us in their written and oral evidence how comparatively low pay in teaching drives low recruitment and retention of physics teachers. Hari Rentala told us, “even if money is not the key or principal motivator, pay competitiveness will be a factor. I don’t think we can get away from that”.¹⁷⁴ Similarly, an NFER report in 2019 on retaining Science, Maths and Computing (SMC) teachers found that research literature provided evidence to indicate that “higher-paid options outside teaching is one often-cited reason why SMC leaving rates are higher compared to non-SMC teachers”.¹⁷⁵

169. The written submission from the RE Policy Unit cited the removal of the ITT bursary for RE as one of the driving factors for teacher shortages in the subject.¹⁷⁶ This was reiterated by Deborah Weston of NATRE who told us:

because we do not have a bursary, and because only a third of the people we get into religious education come from theology and religious studies—the main subject core—that means we are recruiting from all sorts of other subjects, including from law, sociology and English. We will recruit from all sorts. Of course, if there is a bursary for one of those other subjects or a related subject, then they will go where the money is.¹⁷⁷

Workload and teaching out of specialism

170. One factor driving subject specific shortages is high teacher workload, particularly when this workload includes teaching beyond a subject specialism. The Institute of Physics told us, “the problem of burnout has a particular significance for physics teachers” because they are often required to teach outside of their subject. The Institute of Physics found that nearly half of early career physics teachers spend less than two thirds of their time teaching physics, often being deployed as generalist ‘science’ teachers to teach biology and chemistry, outside their specialism.¹⁷⁸ The Institute also found that 40% of those spending less than two thirds of their time teaching physics, considered leaving the profession in the previous year, which is twice the proportion of those who are largely teaching physics. This was highlighted to us as an “important correlation”.¹⁷⁹ Further, we were told by Hari Rentala that the workload pressure associated with being a physics teacher was leading physics graduates who were going into teaching to choose to teach maths.

171. René Koglbauer of the Association for Language Learning also highlighted workload as a factor driving low recruitment and retention amongst MFL teachers. He told us that for some of his cohort of students going into teaching their 40 school placement hours “made them rethink whether they want to be teachers” and that “there are lots of other opportunities with languages where you do not have that stressful environment that a school would present”.¹⁸⁰

What can be done to address subject specific shortages?

Financial incentives: Bursaries

172. ITT bursaries are used to incentivise recruitment to subjects experiencing teacher shortages. The highest bursaries tend to be available for the subjects with the lowest recruitment. Currently (2023/24 academic year), the highest bursary value is £27,000. This is available to those training to be mathematics, physics, computing and chemistry teachers. The second highest bursary value is £25,000, which is available to those training to be geography and modern foreign languages teachers (See table 3 in chapter 2). As mentioned in paragraph 61 Damian Hinds told us this targeting of “hard to recruit” subjects with high bursaries helps ensure that the money invested by the Department into teacher recruitment is “as productive as possible”.¹⁸¹

173. Many of our witnesses representing shortage subjects agreed that bursaries aid recruitment to their subject. We heard about the necessity of bursaries for individuals interested in getting into teaching from Ryan Ball of the Design and Technology Association. He told us that bursaries “make it [becoming a teacher] possible”.¹⁸² Mr Ball also told us about the “correlation” between the availability of a bursary and improved teacher recruitment: he drew to our attention Government statistics which show the total number of new DT ITT entrants has increased every year since the bursary for DT was reinstated in 2021.

174. We heard a similarly positive view from René Koglbauer who told us that he “fully agrees” that bursaries have an “impact” on recruitment due to the increase in applications when the bursary for modern foreign languages increased from £15,000 to £24,000 between the 2022–2023 and 2023–24 academic years.¹⁸³ We heard that the ability to incentivise recruitment by differentiating bursary was extremely valuable, with Dr Sibieta arguing that bursaries are “the one part of teachers’ remuneration over their lifetime where we can vary it by subject”.¹⁸⁴

175. As discussed previously in this report, we have heard convincing evidence about the importance of interventions such as bursaries in targeting recruitment to subjects where there are teacher shortages. Bursaries should continue to be targeted towards subjects where there are shortages and shortages subjects should continually be reviewed to ensure bursaries remain where recruitment is most needed. The Department should increase the value of lower valued bursaries, particularly in subjects experiencing persistent shortages such as RE, DT and modern foreign languages.

Early Career Payments and Levelling Up Premium Payment

176. Another way subject specific teacher shortages could be reduced is through retention payments such as the Levelling Up Premium payment and Early Career Payments. The Early Career Payment ranges between £2,000 and £5,000 while the Levelling Up Premium Payment ranges between £1,500 and £3,000.

Table 6: Subjects eligible for retention payments

Subjects eligible for Early Career payments	Subjects eligible for Levelling Up Premium Payment
Chemistry	Chemistry
Languages	Computing
Mathematics	Mathematics
Physics	Physics

Source: Early career payments for teachers https://www.gov.uk/guidance/early-career-payments-guidance-for-teachers-and-schools Levelling up premium payments for school teachers https://www.gov.uk/guidance/levelling-up-premium-payments-for-teachers

177. These payments raise the starting salary of eligible teachers above £30,000 and provide additional payments during their first five years of teaching. The importance of retaining teachers in the early years of their career was emphasised to us by many witnesses. Hari Rentala told us that “each year an early career teacher stays in their profession, they are perfecting their craft, building their capability and their expertise”.¹⁸⁵

178. Similarly, Professor Becky Allen told us that in the fifth year of their career teachers are usually paid “reasonably well to the point where it is hard for them to leave the profession and find a comparable salary straight away”.¹⁸⁶ Further, Professor Allen said that teachers are experienced enough by this point that the job becomes much more “manageable” compared to the first 2–3 years of teaching.¹⁸⁷

179. Hari Rentala also told us about a paper by researchers at UCL’s Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities. This found that “targeted uplifts worth 8% of gross salary for early career maths and physics teachers result in a cost per additional teacher retained that was 32% lower than training a replacement.”¹⁸⁸ The paper also found that such retention payments decrease the probability of attrition by 23%.

180. We recognise the positive impact both the Early Career and Levelling Up Premium Payments can have in improving teacher retention in subjects that are experiencing teacher shortages. In line with earlier recommendations in this report the Department should expand the Levelling Up Premium and Early Career Payments according to subject and regional demand. The eligibility criteria for these payments should be reviewed in order to adapt and respond to shortages.

181. The Department should also analyse the impact of the Levelling Up Premium and Early Career Payments. There should be a particular focus on their regional impact, for example, to find out whether recruitment in places nearby education investment areas has been negatively impacted or resulted in ‘brain drain.’

Enabling non-specialist teachers through subject knowledge enhancements programmes and upskilling

182. We heard throughout the inquiry that due to the current recruitment and retention trends it is unlikely that all pupils will be taught by a teacher educated to degree level in the subject they are teaching. Speaking about Maths and Physics, Russell Hobby of Teach First said:

If you wanted every young person in this country who is studying maths to be taught by a maths graduate, you would need to recruit 20% of all maths graduates to join the teaching profession every year, on a consistent basis… The simple answer is that we are not going to have every young person taught by a degree-level specialist in their subject. It is similar stats for physics and for other things as well.¹⁸⁹

183. Similarly, representatives from the Design and Technology Association recognised and accepted that Design and Technology at Key Stage 3 will “inevitably be taught by a workforce that lacks deep subject knowledge”.¹⁹⁰ However, they warned against reducing the Design and Technology curriculum as a solution to shortages, instead recommending that non-specialist teachers are upskilled with the knowledge to be able to teach this subject.

184. Teachers without degree level knowledge may still be suitable to teach these subjects. Deborah Weston from NATRE told us “It is not a complete dead-end in terms of subject qualification because you can become an expert over time with the proper CPD, the proper resource”.¹⁹¹

185. Where non-specialists are required to teach outside of their specialism there are often issues around confidence and enthusiasm. However, support is available. Russell Hobby of Teach First said:

It is possible to teach maths and other subjects well from a good A-Level grade, but you need to invest in significant subject knowledge enhancement to give people the confidence to do that, particularly for a subject like maths where people, given a choice, feel a lot less confident in teaching that outside of their specialism. We are going to have to do something just to build up people’s confidence in teaching from A-Level if we want to hit that.¹⁹²

Subject knowledge enhancement

186. One way to increase recruitment to shortage subjects is through subject knowledge enhancement (SKE) programmes. The Department’s submission explains that SKE programmes “help ITT applicants in key subjects to gain the depth of subject knowledge needed to train to teach their chosen subject and meet Standard 3 (subject knowledge) of the Teachers’ Standards”.¹⁹³ These programmes are completed before an individual begins teacher training and some offers from ITT programmes require prospective teachers to complete a SKE to enter their programme while others do not. The Department’s submission adds:

Over the current four-year framework around £55 million has been invested in SKE and “there is capacity to support up to 3,500 candidates in 2022/23”.
In 2021/22 approximately 2,200 candidates benefited from SKE programmes,
there is capacity to support up to 3,500 candidates in 2022/23.

187. Sue Lovelock told us SKE programmes are an “important element to our approach to recruitment [giving] candidates who would not otherwise be able to go on and teach in some of our priority subjects additional time to develop their subject knowledge”.¹⁹⁴ We were told by the University of Exeter that SKE programmes are useful in helping “support students bridging a small gap between their degree subject and subject to be taught”.¹⁹⁵ Similarly, the Minister of State for Schools (the Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP) highlighted to us the “importance” of subject knowledge enhancement programmes for those “who have A-level but not degree-level qualification in the subjects”.¹⁹⁶

188. We were told by witnesses that SKE programmes “have generally been well received”. However, some concern was raised about the decline in the engagement and quality of subject knowledge enhancement programmes in recent years. Hari Rentala of the Institute of Physics told us about what he described as a “withering” of physics subject knowledge enhancements programmes.¹⁹⁷ For example, between 2020–21 and 2021–22 the number of people taking up the physics SKE programmes fell from 286 to 97. Other organisations and academics also described reduced engagement with SKE programmes. For example, academics at Nottingham Trent University told us that the uptake of SKE courses had recently “fallen to its lowest level putting their continuation into question”.

189. The Institute of Physics written submission highlighted issues about the quality of SKE programmes:

At their inception, SKE courses were largely six months in duration and were concentrated in a few regional centres, which provided a service to the other providers in that region. This allowed for large cohort sizes which were economically viable and allowed participants to support each other. Subsequently, all providers were allowed to offer an SKE course, which led to many smaller courses, which became financially unsustainable.¹⁹⁸

190. Applicants are now allowed to hold multiple offers from different ITE providers. While this is positive in that it offers applicants more choice it has also been suggested that this has led to a “race to the bottom”¹⁹⁹ where on receipt of multiple offers individuals prefer to take up ITT offers that do not require the completion of a SKE programme. We heard that this could potentially have negative impacts both on the knowledge and skills levels of teachers, and also on the quality of SKE provision.

191. The University of Exeter told us about the variation in requirements for SKE programmes:

In the last 5 years, the percentage of offers conditional on a subject knowledge enhancement (SKE) course has ranged from 20–45% for physics, 10–30% for chemistry and with wide variations in other subjects.²⁰⁰

192. Though these changes were implemented with the intention of improving flexibility and choice there have been unforeseen negative impacts which undermine the effectiveness of SKE programmes. To improve the effectiveness of these programmes the Universities’ Council for the Education of Teachers (UCET) suggested various changes to SKE policy to us:

Amending SKE policy to allow for general science SKEs
Allowing trainees to undertake a SKE in a second science discipline (this is already the case for modern languages)
Reintroducing the short (2 unit) SKE booster courses
Piloting an amendment to SKE policy so SKE can be taken for a limited number of subjects before applying to an ITE course.

The Institute of Physics suggested “restoring the number and duration of SKE courses provided through a targeted number of key regional centres”.²⁰¹

193. We welcome the use of subject knowledge enhancement programmes within Initial Teacher Training, where appropriate, as it is clear these programmes provide an opportunity to improve teaching capacity in subjects where there are specific issues in recruitment and retention. While it is important that these programmes are flexible in order to attract more individuals, high standards and quality must also be maintained.

194. Subject knowledge enhancement programmes should be used where there are minor gaps in subject knowledge, for example, where individuals have a relevant A-Level or degree qualification. The Department should review current subject knowledge enhancement provision with the aim of balancing quality and flexibility of provision. This review should also look specifically at options for upskilling teachers in the areas of RSHE and financial education, as we have heard in evidence from our other inquiries that teachers would benefit from enhanced training in these areas.

195. In March 2024 it was reported by Schools Week that the Department would be limiting the provision of SKE programmes to maths, physics, chemistry, computing and modern foreign languages from April 2024 due to reductions in funding.²⁰² Providers were told not to admit anyone on primary school maths, design and technology, English, biology and RE SKE programmes which are being. A DfE spokesperson said:

We are continuing to offer subject knowledge enhancement funding in subjects with the biggest sufficiency challenges including mathematics, physics, chemistry, computing, and languages, alongside trainee bursaries and scholarship for these subjects.²⁰³

196. This change has been met with criticism due to secondary recruitment targets still being consistently missed. James Noble-Rogers, executive director of the Universities Council for the Education of Teachers said “great teachers will probably be lost” due to the reduction of SKE programmes on offer.²⁰⁴

197. We strongly disagree with the Department’s decision to axe five subject options from the Department’s subject knowledge enhancement (SKE) programme offering. subject knowledge enhancement programmes are crucial in closing knowledge gaps to allow more people to teach in shortages subjects. We consider the removal of five subjects from this offering to undermine teacher recruitment efforts. We urge the Department to rethink this decision and reinstate funding for subject knowledge enhancement programmes in primary school maths, design and technology, English, biology and RE.

Upskilling

198. Beyond subject knowledge enhancement programmes, which are delivered during initial teacher training, further training and support for those teaching subjects outside of their specialism may be available on a subject-by-subject basis. However, Hari Rentala told us “the landscape as a whole is slightly patchy in terms of what is on offer”.²⁰⁵ For example, the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics launched a specialist knowledge for teaching mathematics (secondary non-specialist teachers) programme to address the prevalence of non-specialist teachers teaching maths in secondary schools. Similarly, the Institute of Physics’ written evidence highlighted the upskilling of existing teachers through the Subject Knowledge for Physics Teaching (SKPT) programme which is delivered and fully funded by a charitable trust that seeks to promote physics education.²⁰⁶

199. We were told by Ryan Ball about the popularity of training run by the Design and Technology Association for non-specialist teachers. He said:

Through the demand for design and technology training for non-specialists, we trialled a three-day course in the summer holidays, thinking that it was not going to be taken up. We had a waiting list and had to turn people away because we simply could not fit them into our offices to deliver it. We also know that this cost several hundred pounds, and some teachers were paying for that out of their own pocket because they are anxious and concerned about teaching the subject.²⁰⁷

200. This upskilling work is evidently important in addressing subject specific teacher shortages. However, we were told that investment would be “most welcome” because subject associations often have no choice but to “rely on charitable donations” which is not sustainable in the long term.²⁰⁸

201. Beyond the specific subject knowledge enhancement (SKE) programmes that may be delivered within initial teacher training, upskilling is a useful and effective way for non-specialist teachers to gain the necessary knowledge to teach certain subjects once qualified. This approach has the potential to significantly mitigate the impact of subject specific teacher shortages. However, the current inconsistency of opportunities to upskill across subjects undermines its potential.

202. Upskilling should be used as a mitigation across subjects experiencing teacher shortages. For subjects such as Maths, a compulsory subject that has experienced persistent shortages in teacher supply it is even more pertinent that mitigations such as upskilling are used to manage teacher shortages.

203. The Department should work with subject associations where there are current teacher shortages to coordinate support and funding efforts with the aim of developing upskilling opportunities across these shortage subjects.

6 Flexibility and workload

Flexibility

204. The significant change in working culture with the introduction of more flexible ways of working across many industries has not been replicated in the education sector. This was acknowledged in the Department for Education’s written submission to this inquiry which stated, “there is an unmet demand for flexible working in the [education] sector”.²⁰⁹ Building on this, the Department’s Director of Teaching Workforce, Sue Lovelock told us:

We will want to think about it really carefully when we refresh the teacher recruitment and retention strategy in the early part of next year, given what a significant change there has been in workplace standards and practices around flexible working over the past few years.²¹⁰

205. Across the inquiry we heard from various witnesses about the increased demand for flexibility. When asked about the potential of flexible working in schools Professor Becky Francis CBE, CEO of the Education Endowment Foundation, told us about the “strong perceptual evidence about the desirability of flexible working amongst the teacher workforce” saying:

It is also now, particularly post-pandemic, genuinely about flexibility and what graduates expect from their working conditions, or what they would like from their working conditions.²¹¹

206. The role of flexibility in attracting people to and retaining people within the education sector was reiterated to us by the Minister of State for Schools (the Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP), who said:

Flexible working is a really important part of attracting and keeping people in any occupation… in the modern world, in our modern society, we need to offer flexible working to attract the full range of talent.²¹²

207. However, across the inquiry we heard that this is not yet the case, with the sector’s inability to meet demands for flexible working undermining the appeal of the profession, particularly when the private sector offers much more flexibility. For example, Katie Waldegrave MBE, CEO of Now Teach, told us that in terms of flexibility “the world has changed, teaching has not kept up, compared with what the private sector is doing”.²¹³ This was also highlighted by the National Foundation for Educational Research who told us that the lack of part time options in addition to general inflexibility within the education sector was a “serious threat to teaching’s relative attractiveness”.²¹⁴ Reiterating and expanding upon this point, Dr Luke Sibieta, a Research Fellow at the Institute for Fiscal Studies told us:

Since the pandemic, more people are working from home, and they place a high value on it. Private sector organisations are very much hot on that, trying to work out appropriate compromises for their employees, the means by which they can still interact in an office environment but have the flexibility to work from home when they need to for particular events, or just for autonomy.²¹⁵

208. Since the pandemic, flexible working has been widely embraced across different professions and sectors of the economy. However, this has not been replicated in the education sector. If the education sector is to remain competitive, particularly in the recruitment of graduates, more must be done to increase opportunities for flexible working in schools.

209. Witnesses went further to tell us that the issue of inflexibility not only negatively impacted teacher recruitment but also retention. Evidence from Schools North East pointed to the “rigidity” of the school working day as a “key driving force behind a growing recruitment and retention crisis in education”. Similarly, Education Support told us:

the lack of flexible working policies in schools is driving teachers out of the profession, particularly those with their own children; and this is likely only to worsen, as the gap in home-working and flexitime widens between teaching, and other professions.²¹⁶

210. In a survey of teachers, Education Support found that:

64% of the teachers they surveyed were either ‘very likely’ to leave teaching for more flexible working hours in another sector.
36% of the teachers they surveyed were ‘somewhat likely’ to leave teaching for more flexible working hours in another sector.

211. The desire for more flexible working hours such as part-time work amongst teachers is further evidenced by the National Foundation For Educational Research report which found that around a fifth of full-time teachers who left the profession moved into part-time work in their new role. However, despite this apparent desire for part-time work under a quarter (23.9%) of teachers were listed in the School Workforce Census (SWC) as working part time for the 2022/23 academic year.²¹⁷

212. We also heard that even where teachers are taking up part-time roles in schools, in reality this is not fully part-time due to issue of excessive workloads, which will be explored in later in this chapter. We received evidence that suggests many teachers employed on a part-time basis are “fitting a full-time job into part-time hours”.²¹⁸ A similar sentiment was relayed to us by Dr Patrick Roach, General Secretary of NASUWT who told us:

On the question of flexibility, I think that my overarching point is one of capacity. Too often, our members will talk to us about how they have been able to secure flexibility in their working time. “I have gone part-time. Now I get paid for three days a week. I work five, but at least I get my weekends back.” That is not flexibility. What it clearly illustrates is the lack of capacity within schools to secure that all-round opportunity for students and the opportunity for the workforce to be able to operate flexibly.²¹⁹

213. Professor Becky Allen, Co-Founder of Teacher Tapp told us that flexibility is more easily achieved in primary schools. She said:

We know in secondary schools the major issue is the timetable and in fact when flexible working requests have been rejected, that is the overwhelming reason given. In primary schools you are simply looking at job share, class share arrangements.²²⁰

214. Along similar lines, Sinéad Mc Breaty agreed that current levels of teacher workload impede flexibility, saying:

We have a very fragile system right now. There is zero tolerance. We cannot afford to lose an hour here or an hour there of the existing teaching capability because we are so scant on resource: what is coming into the system is too little and what is leaving the system is too much.²²¹

215. The Department have told us they will put flexibility at the heart of the new recruitment and retention strategy. This should include the promotion of existing approaches to flexibility that have been proven to be successful such as job shares and part-time working. However, it is clear that the education sector faces unique challenges; these include the high degree of in-person working it requires; issues around timetabling; and the significant and ongoing problem of high workload. The Department will need to find creative ways to address all of these if flexibility is to become a reality for teachers.

Flexible working toolkit

216. In 2023 the DfE published its flexible working toolkit providing guidance to schools in England. This toolkit provided information on building understanding about how flexible working arrangements can:

support recruitment and retention,
promote teacher wellbeing and better work-life balance,
improve productivity, and
promote inclusivity and equal opportunity.

217. The toolkit also provided guidance on how schools can best implement flexible working at a strategic level and operational level. For example, collecting and analysing data to understanding the demand for flexible working within schools, establishing staff focus groups on flexible working, developing a process for managing flexible working requests and reviewing and monitoring flexible work arrangements over time. Sue Lovelock, Director of Teaching Workforce at the Department for Education told us:

The toolkit is at the centre of [promoting flexibility within schools], and it is very much part of our overall communications with colleagues in the sector. It is something we talk to our engagement groups about and continue to emphasise.²²²

218. Despite this, we were told by Professor Becky Allen, Co-Founder of Teacher Tapp that only 15% of the senior leaders surveyed by Teacher Tapp had heard of the Flexible Working Toolkit and only 4% of these leaders also found it useful.²²³ This indicates very poor awareness within the sector about this government intervention.

219. In addition to this toolkit Flexible working ambassador multi-academy trusts and schools were announced. These are a multi-academy trust or school appointed in each region of the country, whose role is to “support school leaders to implement and embed flexible working in their schools” by offering advice, courses and resources.²²⁴

220. We welcome the Department’s initial efforts to support flexible working through the Flexible Working Toolkit launched in summer 2023. However, with only 15% of senior leaders aware of its existence, and even fewer - only 4% - reporting that they found it useful, far more needs to be done to increase awareness of the toolkit amongst school leaders and ensure it is meeting their needs.

221. The Department should redouble efforts to promote the Flexible Working Toolkit with school leaders, with flexible working ambassador schools playing a central role in this. In addition, this should be backed up with a strategy to monitor the extent to which schools are offering flexible working. We ask that the Government provides a full update on this in response to this report.

222. It clear that the practical implementation of flexibility in school settings is currently difficult and further work beyond the Flexible Working Toolkit is needed to ensure flexibility is workable. We heard concern from witnesses that without improving understanding of what flexibility looks like in practice through tangible examples progress, will be limited.²²⁵

223. For example, Professor Dame Alison Peacock, CEO of The Chartered College of Teaching, told us “There are examples, but we need to be much more confident about sharing examples about how we can enable that flexibility to work within the school day.”²²⁶ Similarly, Professor Becky Francis CBE highlighted the examples of flexible working provided by the Department for Education’s flexible working ambassador programme; however, she emphasised the need to improve awareness, telling us:

The other thing to credit the DfE with is its flexible working ambassador programme. I am sure nobody has heard of it but, nevertheless, they have one and I am sure it will grow on the radar. It will be really interesting to see whether they can exemplify productive flexible models. I am sure we all agree that this is pivotal stuff in terms of recruitment and retention, particularly in comparison to other professions.²²⁷

224. There was also acknowledgement from the Department that awareness needs to improve. Sue Lovelock, Director of Teaching Workforce at the Department for Education told us:

We have good case studies and examples of different ambassador schools that are doing flexible working really well, but it is definitely something we want to raise the profile of to ensure that more schools learn about practical changes that you can implement to make flexible working a reality.²²⁸

225. Another challenge we were made aware of is a lack of information about how increased flexibility for school staff would impact students. Witnesses agreed that there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that the consistency of one teacher taking a class is beneficial for pupils learning and that this can dissuade school leaders from implementing flexible working. Professor Becky Allen, the Co-founder of Teacher Tapp told us:

I do not think in these contexts we should pretend that it is costless to have teachers who are seeing students far less often and who necessarily know them less well. The question is: is it worth it given that we could retain our experienced teachers that we know are more effective teachers?

However, ultimately there is a lack of research evidence about these impacts meaning such concerns persist, preventing school leaders from making a decision on flexible working. Professor Becky Francis of the Education Endowment Foundation told us:

school leaders are very concerned about the impact [of flexible working arrangements] on increased costs, of course, and potentially a lack of consistency for children in the classroom as well… as yet we have no evidence about the impacts.²²⁹

226. The above quote also indicates the current lack of understanding about the financial impacts of flexible working arrangements for example, how this would change use of agency staff, which is currently costly as well as what this would mean for the costs associated with leadership positions if there are job shares at this level.

227. There is a lack of understanding about how flexibility would impact schools, particularly the impact on pupils’ learning and school finances. Further information on this is required in order for school leaders to be able to implement flexible working policies with confidence that these are not going to have a negative impact on learning outcomes or school finances.

228. The Department should commission research into the impact flexibility has on teaching and learning for pupils as well as teacher retention. Further research is also needed into the resource and financial implications of flexible working arrangements on the school budgets.

Workload

229. Teacher workload is an area of “intense policy interest” due to the widespread view that high workloads contribute to teacher attrition. Workload is acknowledged by the Department for Education as a “longstanding and complex” issue for teachers and their retention. The DfE’s written evidence states:

In the recent [2022] Working Lives of Teachers and Leaders (WLTL) report, of those teachers saying they are considering leaving the profession within the next 12 months (for reasons other than for retirement), 92% cite workload as a reason, compared to 57% citing dissatisfaction with pay.

230. The DfE’s 2022 WLTL survey also reported:

72% of teachers and leaders disagreed that their workload was acceptable.
62% of teachers and leaders disagreed that they had sufficient control over their workload.
66% of teachers spent over half of their working time on tasks other than teaching (this rose to 77% for secondary teachers).

231. Despite a reduction in teacher workload since 2016²³⁰ there is still widespread agreement that this remains too high from both the Department for Education and teachers. Schools Minister, Damian Hinds MP told us:

Teacher workload is too high, and it is a top priority of mine to reduce it: we want to reduce it by a further five hours a week. There has been some success, so this is one of those areas where it is simultaneously bad but better. It is too high, but it was even higher, so it is down from the peak. Between 2016 and 2019—between the two teacher workload surveys—there was about a five-hour-a-week, so an hour a weekday, reduction in workload, and that is very much to be welcomed. But, as I say, it is still too high, and we need to bring it down.

Along similar lines Jack Worth, the workforce lead at the NFER told us:

There has been a slight reduction in workload since around 2016, but we are talking really minor changes. Working hours have come down a bit but are still much higher than in other graduate jobs. In a typical working week teachers feel they work too many hours.

232. Expanding on how workload compares to other sectors and professions, Katie Waldegrave MBE, Co-founder and CEO of Now Teach (an organisation that supports career changers into teaching) told us:

They [Now Teach teachers] are all proud, and mostly satisfied, with the decision they have made to change career; none the less, 70% of them suggest their workload is higher than it was in other sectors. This includes people who have worked in the private sector, in highly client-based sectors, the whole range of industries. They are saying they are working more, and, because of the retention so often in early years, inevitably, people are promoted to management early.

Similarly, we were told by Dr Luke Sibieta of the Institute for Fiscal Studies that “working hours and workload are big issues. [This] has got a little better, but it is still quite high compared with other occupations.”

Interventions by the Department for Education to reduce workload in schools.

233. Various interventions have been introduced by the DfE to help reduce teacher workload. In 2018 the Department established the Teacher workload advisory group to address the excess workload associated with data and evidence collection in schools. In the same year the Department published a policy paper outlining principles for a clear and simple school accountability system based on the understanding that clarity over accountability would help reduce “unnecessary workload”.

234. In 2019 the DfE launched the School Workload Reduction Toolkit. This was described by the Department as a set of “practical resources” to help teachers and school leaders review and reduce workload. The Toolkit gives guidance on behaviour management, feedback, marking, data management and curriculum planning, areas that have been identified as contributors to excess workload.

235. However, the Committee were told that according to a survey of senior leaders by Teacher Tapp that:

one third of the senior leaders surveyed by Teacher Tapp had never heard of the Workload Reduction Toolkit
another third had heard of the Toolkit but not read it.
Of the third who knew about and read the Toolkit just over a third said they found it helpful.

236. This indicates a lack of engagement with the Toolkit from school leaders. Professor Becky Allen explained:

The school workload reduction toolkit is a big document; you need to invest about 100 hours of senior leadership time in really working through it, and it is unrealistic for school leaders to find the time to focus on school workload reduction.

237. The additional workload added by the Workload Reduction Toolkit was acknowledged by Schools Minister, Damian Hinds MP who said, “It is the case that we are talking about workload, so trying to get people to do another thing, which is to download a toolkit, is itself an extra task”. However, he went on to argue that despite this the Toolkit is a valuable resource which school leaders should engage with, saying:

There is a lot of value to it and we do hear from schools who have used the toolkit, which itself is made up of suggestions that come from schools—schools that have had success with reducing workload saying to other schools, “Here is a thing we have done, here is a resource we have used, so you do not have to reinvent it.²³¹

238. The government launched the Workload Reduction Taskforce alongside the pay award in July 2023 as a part of their ambition to reduce teachers’ and school leaders’ working hours by 5 hours a week within 3 years. The Taskforce’s initial recommendations were published in January 2024. Some of their initial recommendations include:²³²

Schools and trusts should consider the merits of assigning a senior leader with dedicated responsibility for improving wellbeing and reducing workload, working with union representatives and staff.
The DfE should amend guidance to governors and trustees so that the core function of strategic leadership includes consideration of staff workload and wellbeing when setting the school’s / trust’s strategic priorities.
All school and trust governance bodies should publicly commit to and actively promote the recommendations of the workload review and advisory groups, as part of a renewed drive to reduce workload around planning, marking and data management.

239. We welcome the progress made towards reducing teachers working hours, acknowledging that the 5-hour reduction between 2016 and 2019 was a move in the right direction. However, workload remains a top concern for teachers. We welcome the Department’s ambition to reduce working hours by a further 5 hours but urge that this needs to be achieved much sooner than the Department’s 3-year target.

240. We welcome the Department’s efforts to reduce workload through the Workload Reduction Toolkit. However, we are concerned about the lack of awareness of the Toolkit despite being published over five years ago. If more progress is to be made the Toolkit needs to be made accessible and easy to use so school leaders and teachers can properly benefit.

241. The Department must continue to promote and build on existing efforts to reduce teacher workload. This should include condensing the Workload Reduction Toolkit, so it is more easily accessible for school staff. We endorse the Workload Reduction Taskforce recommendation that the DfE should “commit to enhancing knowledge and accessibility of the School Workload Reduction Toolkit, including improving the design for users and ensuring that case studies and resources remain relevant and include new, impactful, solutions that schools and trusts have implemented.”

242. The Department should also put measures in place to monitor the implementation of strategies and solutions across schools and trusts. The listed recommendations from the Workload Reduction Taskforce should be introduced as a matter of urgency with the Department reviewing progress on this by Spring 2025.

Non-teaching workloads

243. Despite the above interventions by the Department, workload continues to be an issue. As recently as summer 2023 the School Teachers’ Review Body called for a “meaningful reduction” of teacher workload to be an “immediate priority”.²³³

244. In our evidence session with the Schools Minister, he told us that even at an international level, teachers in England are working longer hours than their counterparts in other countries. However, that this is not solely down to longer teaching hours, because as mentioned above there has been some progress in recent years. The Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP said:

We know from international studies that our teachers are working longer hours, but it is not because they are teaching longer hours: it is all the out of-classroom stuff. We know from previous surveys what the big components to that have been and endemically, it is lesson planning and prep, marking, data entry and so on.²³⁴

245. Across the written evidence submitted to the Committee “significant concern” about the amount of time being spent by teachers on such non-teaching activity was evident.²³⁵ Education Support found that teacher dissatisfaction was “driven” by tasks that take teachers away from their “core purpose” of teaching.²³⁶

246. This is evidenced by results of the most recent Working lives of teachers and leaders survey which found “around half of all teachers also said that data recording, inputting, and analysis, behaviour and incident follow up, individual lesson planning, and marking took up ‘too much’ of their time”.²³⁷ This was further backed up by the evidence we received: for example the Schools, Students and Teachers Network described the “expectation” that teachers and school leaders “will work long hours in school and at home planning and marking.”²³⁸

247. We have heard from many sources that teachers are having to devote too much time to non-teaching tasks such as lesson planning and preparation, marking, admin and data entry. The Schools Minister, Damian Hinds, highlighted the Oak National Academy, the online classroom and education resource hub, as “one way of being able to reduce lesson planning and prep time” and alleviating such non-teaching workloads.²³⁹

248. We were told by Sinéad Mc Brearty, CEO of Education Support that their Commission on Teacher Retention identified main two categories of tasks that contribute to a teachers non-teaching workload “accountability-driven workload” and “spillover from wider public services”.²⁴⁰

Accountability driven workload

249. As a result of these pressures evidence about best practice to reduce teacher workload is ignored and not adopted by schools. This was highlighted by Professor Becky Allen of Teacher Tapp who told us that for some senior leaders’ workload reduction efforts such as limiting meetings or changing marking policies could be seen as “undermining their own efforts to lead and run and improve their school”. Similarly, Jack Worth of the NFER told us:

Schools know how to reduce workload, but they have a lot of other things to think about, like balancing trading off against school improvement and what Ofsted wants to see.²⁴¹

250. Written evidence submitted to the inquiry recounted the additional workload associated with accountability measures, particularly Ofsted inspections. In their submission, Education Support refer to a “trickledown effect” where pressure to get the school ‘Ofsted ready’ flows down from school leadership to the rest of the school staff. They argue that this pressure has a “direct impact on teacher workload” as teachers undertake extra planning, book sharing and marking in anticipation of an Ofsted visit.²⁴²

251. Accountability measures do not only add to individual teachers’ workload, but also impact teacher wellbeing. A 2021 study by Nuffield Foundation found school accountability to be one of the “main drivers of stress” for teachers in England. It found 68% of teachers in England reported feeling accountability-related stress.²⁴³

252. Acknowledging this, and in an effort to alleviate the negative impact accountability pressures can have on teacher’s workload, the DfE have published various iterations of guidance that aims “confirm facts about the requirements of Ofsted and to dispel myths that can result in unnecessary workloads”²⁴⁴. However, this was withdrawn in September 2019. With a similar intention the Education Staff Wellbeing Charter launched in 2021 commits Ofsted to:

review whether the framework is having inadvertent impacts on staff wellbeing (for example, creating unnecessary workload) and take steps to alleviate any issue [and] continue to clarify that we do not expect providers to create documentation for inspection, to try to reduce administrative workload.²⁴⁵

253. It is evident that accountability pressures contribute to additional non-teaching workload for teachers with perceived expectations undermining efforts to implement best practice around reducing workload. This persists despite guidance from the Department.

254. The Department should increase myth busting efforts around Ofsted to reduce accountability related workload. The joint update from DFE and Ofsted that the Workload Reduction Taskforce recommendation should be published without delay and efforts to reduce the accountability related workload should be monitored on an ongoing basis.

‘Spillover’ from public services

255. In the first oral evidence session we heard about the additional support teachers were providing due to the low capacity of other public services that exist to support children. Dr Mary Bousted, Joint General Secretary of the National Education Union, told us:

Teachers and leader support staff become breakfast club givers, they find money for free school lunches, they become uniform washers, family counsellors, children’s counsellors and quasi-social workers.²⁴⁶

256. Similarly, the Schools, Students and Teachers Network highlighted the increasing difficulty teachers are having in accessing external support and the IOE pointed to “inadequate capacity among child social and mental health services”.²⁴⁷²⁴⁸

257. From the evidence we received, it is clear that the support needs of pupils have been exacerbated by the pandemic. Philip Nye, Data Scientist at the Institute for Government told us:

Of course, the pandemic has introduced new challenges, and teachers will also tell you they are having to do a lot more on mental health and social care responsibilities, for example, as a result of local authorities not having the resources they used to have. That probably plays a part of it, so it is not just the workload, but it is the type of extra work they are being asked to do.²⁴⁹

258. Evidence from Education Support painted a similar picture, pointing to the rising cost of living in addition to the pandemic as a factor that has increased contributed to teachers having to take on work usually done by families, child services or health professionals. Education Support provided us with the following statistics from a survey they conducted:²⁵⁰

69% of teachers reported helping pupils to talk about their mental health.
33% of teachers reported helping their pupils resolve a family conflict.
74% of teachers often help pupils with personal matters beyond their academic work.

This data indicates the varied type of non-teaching work teachers are taking on for pupils and their families.

259. A wide range of non-teaching tasks are contributing to excessive teacher workload so efforts towards reducing teacher workload cannot be limited to reducing teaching hours or the Workload Reduction Toolkit.

260. We are concerned that since the pandemic teachers are spending more time on addressing issues that would typically fall outside the remit of schools, including family conflict resolution and mental health support. Wraparound support must urgently be made more widely available and delivered by the appropriate organisations including local social care services and Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS).

261. We recommend the Department clearly defines the parameters of schools’ and teachers’ responsibilities. To support with issues that are not within the scope of schools’ responsibilities Wraparound support should be easily available and accessible. Schools and teachers should be able to easily signpost pupils or parents to other organisations better suited to address barriers to attendance, wider concerns or care, and improvements are needed in both awareness of and access to this type of support.

262. Once again, we recommend that the Department leads a cross-government assessment of the scale of mental health difficulties amongst pupils and review the current provision of support available in schools and outside of them. The Government should conclude this review and report its findings by Autumn 2024. There then needs to be significant and well co-ordinated joint working across the Government and additional funding to ensure Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) provision is adequate to meet the needs of school age children, in line with the Department’s previous commitment to a 4-week waiting time for NHS mental health support for children.

7 Pupil behaviour

263. Though not a new issue, recent news coverage has highlighted worsening pupil behaviour in schools across England since the lockdown period.²⁵¹²⁵² This is summarised by the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) in their September 2023 report on behaviour in schools. They wrote:

Teachers and leaders have always raised concerns about behaviour that undermines their efforts to create safe, calm and educationally conducive environments. However, particularly following the return to full-time, on-site learning after the restrictions on school attendance following the COVID-19 pandemic, many teachers and leaders reported encountering more frequent and more serious instances of pupil indiscipline.²⁵³

264. The extent of current behavioural issues is exemplified by the pupil suspension data published in April 2024.²⁵⁴ According to the Department for Education data there were 263,904 suspensions in the spring term of 2022/23, compared to 201,090 during the spring term of 2021/22, a rise of 31%. This is the highest termly figure of pupil suspensions recorded by the Department.

265. A similar trend is seen with the data on permanent exclusions. This found that there were 3,039 permanent exclusions in spring 2023, compared to 2,179 in spring 2022, a rise of 39%.²⁵⁵ Further, the most common cause for both suspensions and permanent exclusions was persistent disruptive behaviour.

266. The NASUWT report on behaviour in schools suggests various factors have contributed to the growth of poor pupil behaviour in recent years. When asked “if you feel pupil behaviour has deteriorated in your school, what do you believe are the driving factors behind this?” they received the following responses:²⁵⁶

73% of surveyed teachers identified “poor socialisation skills following COVID restrictions”
53% identified the “lack of proper policies and procedures to deter unacceptable behaviour”
And 51% identified the “poor mental health of pupils”

267. These results are similar to what we heard in oral evidence sessions. Russell Hobby, CEO of Teach First told us about “more behaviour concerns inside schools [and the] rising mental health challenge that many young people are reporting”.²⁵⁷

Impact of poor pupil behaviour

268. The Department’s evidence tells us that poor pupil behaviour has an impact on teacher wellbeing and job satisfaction. The 2022 The Working Lives of Teachers and Leaders (WLTL) survey found that 37% of the teachers and school leaders who rated pupil behaviour as ‘poor’ were more likely than average to report considering leaving the profession in the next 12 months when compared to the 21% who reported behaviour as ‘good’.²⁵⁸ These figures indicate that in addition to reducing job satisfaction poor pupil behaviour also undermines teacher retention, with this contributing to individuals’ decision to leave the profession.

269. Similarly, Dr Luke Sibieta from the Institute for Fiscal Studies told us that pupil behaviour has a significant effect on whether teachers remain at a school or in the profession more generally. In an oral evidence session Dr Sibieta recalled analysis that found moving from a school with high levels of behavioural disruption to a school with low levels of behaviour disruption is equivalent to a 26% pay difference for teachers.

270. The level of support provided to teachers dealing with poor behaviour also correlates with job satisfaction and teacher retention. The Working Lives of Teachers and Leaders (WLTL) survey found:

70% of the teachers surveyed who ‘always’ or ‘mostly’ felt supported to deal with disruptive behaviour were satisfied with their job ‘all’ or ‘most of the time’ compared with 27% of those who felt occasionally or never supported.
Of those teachers and leaders who reported that they were considering leaving the profession in the next year those who reported ‘occasionally’ or ‘never’ being supported to deal with disruptive behaviour were more likely to be considering leaving compared to those who felt ‘always’ or ‘mostly’ supported (41% vs 20%).

271. Along similar lines, Jack Worth from the NFER also told us about the importance of support from senior leaders and schools to help teachers deal with poor pupil behaviour, describing that absence of this support as a “stress inducer”.²⁵⁹ And analysis from the NASUWT Big Question Survey 2023 found that 42% of the teachers they surveyed found ‘offensive behaviour from pupils/parents or colleagues not being tackled by management’ professionally disempowering.²⁶⁰

272. During our inquiry we also heard how poor pupil behaviour can be a concern for prospective and early career teachers. Russell Hobby, CEO of Teach First told us:

Prospective teachers are always worried about behaviour management. It is the thing that makes them nervous. They have been for decades and will continue to be so. I don’t think that it puts them off, although a sudden rise in news stories of the like we have seen recently would make some people think twice.²⁶¹

273. Evidence from the Department also indicates a feeling of lack of preparedness to handle poor pupil behaviour amongst early career teachers (ECT). Their analysis found:

Just over half (54%) of ECTs reported feeling well prepared for managing poor behaviour or disruptions in class.
One in six (17%) felt badly prepared for this, with one in twenty (5%) saying they felt ‘very badly’ prepared.

274. Though the issue of poor pupil behaviour it not new, it has become worse since the pandemic with more disruptive pupil behaviour, school exclusions and suspensions. Poor behaviour not only undermines pupils learning and a positive classroom culture, but it also impacts teacher recruitment and retention. Reports of worsening behaviour have the potential to discourage prospective teachers from entering the profession and to contribute to existing teachers’ desire to leave the profession.

275. Across the inquiry we also heard how poor behaviour from pupils can impact workload. Jack worth of the NFER told us that teachers often identify behavioural management one of the areas “important for workload reduction”.²⁶² In a similar vein professor Becky Francis told us:

We have also heard about behaviour management being a top priority for teachers in regard to not only their classroom experience, but also to addressing workloads. There is a strong correlation between positive efforts to address these issues within schools and teachers’ feelings, both about their likelihood of retention, and about their work satisfaction and their positive views of their own manageability of their workload.²⁶³

276. In our roundtable with teachers and school leaders we heard that there has been an increase in the “hostile attitudes of parents” towards teachers. In some cases, this has extended to social media as well as “scattergun” complaints to Ofsted, DfE and MPs.²⁶⁴

277. The Department needs to reinforce the importance of positive and effective partnerships between schools, pupils and parents in addressing and improving pupil behaviour and attendance. This is particularly important for special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) pupils who represent an increasing proportion of pupils.

278. We have heard substantial concerns as a part of our screen time inquiry about the negative impact social media and other digital activities can have on pupils’ behaviour and attention levels. We will address this in our upcoming screen time report.²⁶⁵

Behaviour hubs

279. To address poor pupil behaviour the Department launched the behaviour hubs programme in 2020. This programme is open to schools, multi-academy trusts, alternative provision schools and special schools across England rated ‘good’, ‘requires improvement’ or ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted.²⁶⁶ As a member of a behaviour hub these settings receive a range of support which is expanded upon below:²⁶⁷

280. Behaviour hub ‘Partner schools’ work with ‘Lead Schools’ who have been identified for “exemplary behaviour culture”.²⁶⁸ Lead Schools collaborate with Partner schools providing tailored, one-to-one support Partner Schools, This includes:

Diagnosing behaviour issues and auditing existing strategies
Defining new behaviour approaches that are suitable for the Partner School’s context
Developing an action plan to provide an implementation roadmap for these new behaviour strategies.

281. The senior leadership team of ‘Partner Schools’ on the behaviour hubs programme undertake training modules led by behaviour advisers. This training includes:

Compulsory induction training
Compulsory virtual modules focused on developing sustainable behaviour practices
Optional additional modules that focus on specific areas e.g. Attendance and punctuality
Specialist modules which are specific to behaviour in alternative provision and special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) settings.

282. Open days are held for participants of the behaviour hubs programmes. During these, ‘partner schools’ visit ‘Lead Schools’ enabling them to see positive behaviour culture in action. ‘Lead Schools’ run one open day per term.

283. Each term behaviour hub networking events take place bringing ‘Lead’ and ‘Partner’ Schools together. These events provide an opportunity to share experiences and good practice.

284. We recognise the importance of the work done through the behaviour hubs programme since 2020. Schools need practical advice and guidance on managing pupil behaviour and creating a positive behavioural culture. We recommend expanding the behaviour hubs programme to increase capacity and allow more schools to benefit from this programme, which could also help teacher retention.

Conclusions and recommendations

Introduction

1. There are now over 468,000 teachers which we accept as an improvement in absolute terms though not relative to pupil numbers. However, we recognise that this is still insufficient, particularly when we know recruitment targets continue to be missed, the number of teacher vacancies doubled between 2020 and 2022 and that secondary pupil numbers are expected to peak at around 3,230,000 this year. Progress on recruitment needs to be sustained and improved in order to manage and meet the needs of this demographic ‘bulge’. (Paragraph 20)

2. Our evidence suggests that recruitment and retention issues occur at every stage of education, from primary school through to further education. However, the challenge increases as we move up the phases with more vacancies and a greater retention challenge in secondary than in primary and again in post 16. The Department must ensure that efforts are being made to improve recruitment and retention throughout all stages of education and that any demographic bulges are tracked, planned for and responded to right the way through the system. (Paragraph 25)

3. We welcome the Department’s approach to setting postgraduate initial teacher training recruitment targets using the Teacher Workforce Model. However, changes need to be made if a more holistic picture of the demand for teachers across all subjects and phases of education is to be achieved. The Department should ensure that pupil demographic trends are included in analysis to ensure future demand is taken into full account when setting recruitment targets. We also recommend that the Teacher Workforce Model should be extended to cover the post-16 and further education phases, meaning the model estimates the number of qualified teachers required by state-funded primary and secondary schools (including nursery and post-16 provision within such schools), academies, free schools, post-16 providers and further education colleges in England. (Paragraph 28)

Financial incentives for recruitment and retention

4. Teacher salaries need to be attractive in order to boost recruitment. We welcome the introduction of a £30k starting salary as a step towards improved competitiveness. However, it is clear that this salary will have to be increased in the coming years if it is to remain competitive. Whilst initiatives such as the levelling up premium may help in certain areas, the issue of pay competitiveness will need to be kept under review across the board and both starting salaries and progression must be taken into account. (Paragraph 40)

5. We understand the Department’s budgetary pressures. However, in order to compete with other sectors and improve recruitment and retention, teacher pay must keep pace year on year with other comparable sectors. It is also essential that funding to enable the continued competitiveness of teacher salaries does not adversely impact levels of funding elsewhere in the schools budget. (Paragraph 45)

6. We welcome the most recent pay agreement for support staff; however, we have heard persistent concerns that low pay is resulting in difficulty recruiting and retaining staff in these vital roles which help both teachers and pupils and provide essential support to children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) (Paragraph 51)

7. We are also concerned that despite support staff pay increasing additional resource has not been made available to schools from the DfE to fund these increases. We are concerned about the additional pressure this puts on school budgets and that without additional funding from the Department schools are unable to employ the support staff they need. (Paragraph 52)

8. We recommend the Department complete a review into the cumulative impact of excluding funding for support staff pay increases from school funding allocations. Further, going forward, the wage growth of support staff must be factored into school budgets and the Department must allocate sufficient funding to schools to cover the growth of support staff salaries. (Paragraph 53)

9. Where available, bursaries and scholarships improve teacher recruitment. We heard strong evidence that bursaries should be targeted where they will be most effective, such as for subjects with longstanding under-recruitment, subjects where demand is expected to increase and subjects that have particularly competitive job markets. However, we also heard concerns about the negative impact of targeted financial incentives on recruitment to teach non-bursary subjects. (Paragraph 63)

10. Bursaries should continue to be targeted according to under-recruitment so the subjects struggling the most with recruitment receive the highest bursaries. However, additionally, the Department should introduce lower bursary offerings for shortage subjects where there is no existing offer alongside continuing to promote non-bursary subjects through broad, above-the-line advertising that focuses on teaching as a vocation more generally. (Paragraph 64)

11. Though concern remains about the retention of teachers in receipt of bursary funding. Evidence tells us that the current structure of bursaries offers sufficient value for money in terms of recruitment and retention, given that retention rates are similar for those who do and do not receive Initial teacher training (ITT) bursaries. We recommend the Government keep the option of ‘golden handcuffs’ under review and commissions further research on how retention can be improved. (Paragraph 72)

12. We welcome the initial success of existing retention payments such as the Levelling Up Premium and Early Career Payments. The Department should expand the Levelling Up Premium and Early Career Payments according to subject and regional demand. We have heard concerns about the restriction of these payments to Education Investment areas and that they may be needed elsewhere. The eligibility criteria for these payments should be reviewed periodically in order to adapt and respond to shortages; a national roll out of these payments should be considered if they continue to be a success. (Paragraph 73)

13. The Department should also monitor the attrition of those who receive these payments. This would improve understanding of whether there is a “postponement effect” amongst recipients, where they leave the profession once these payments stop. (Paragraph 74)

Alternative routes into teaching

14. We have heard that there remains a lack of awareness and understanding about the variety of routes into teaching and what routes into teaching are most appropriate for prospective teacher trainees. The Department should improve communication around the different routes into teaching with a particular focus on clarifying what these routes entail and what applicants they are best suited for. (Paragraph 78)

15. The Department’s recruitment efforts currently focus heavily on new graduates. However more needs to be done to encourage recruitment from other groups. There should be more and clearer pathways for groups such as non-graduates, former military personnel and those interested in changing their career to teaching at a later stage of their life and returning former teachers who want to return to the role. (Paragraph 80)

16. We welcome the Department’s plan to introduce a non-graduate apprenticeship, specifically for experienced non-teaching staff alongside the existing graduate apprenticeship, as an opportunity to recruit non-graduates who are already working within the education sector into teaching. However, we are concerned that fewer than 1000 people have taken an apprenticeship route into teaching since 2019. Which suggest this remains a minor and specialist route into teaching, given the wider expansion of higher-level apprenticeships we believe there is more scope to expand the use of apprenticeships in growing the teaching workforce. (Paragraph 84)

17. The Department should continue to promote and expand the existing Graduate Teacher Apprenticeship, setting intake targets for each academic year. The Department should also move forward with plans to introduce a non-graduate teaching apprenticeship, specifically for experienced non-teaching staff with further detail on this published by Autumn 2024. (Paragraph 85)

18. Given the extent of the teacher recruitment challenge, in particular severe shortages being faced in certain secondary school subjects (see chapter 5) the Department should be using all available channels to recruit specialist secondary teachers. The decision to remove funding from Now Teach undermines efforts to improve teacher recruitment. (Paragraph 88)

19. The Department should urgently rethink the decision to cut funding for Now Teach as career changers are an important group that have the potential to positively contribute towards improving secondary teacher numbers. Further, the Department should introduce more paid routes into teaching and a bursary specifically for those making a career change. The value of this bursary should be determined on a multi-year basis to help improve the stability of these routes, benefiting both applicants and Initial Teacher Education providers. (Paragraph 89)

20. The Department should encourage the return of former teachers into the profession by introducing and promoting specific training and bursary routes for returners. We also recommend that the Department reviews how returning teachers can be used to address current issues in the teacher workforce such as the shortage of secondary school teachers and teachers for specific subjects. (Paragraph 91)

21. We welcome the Department’s continued efforts to encourage ex-military personnel to enter the teaching profession. We view their experience managing people with differing levels of education as extremely valuable to schools. However, the Department should do more to promote the undergraduate bursary for veterans to increase awareness. Further, the Undergraduate veteran bursary scheme and its subject eligibility criteria should also be reviewed and expanded in order to improve uptake. We also recommend the introduction of a non-graduate route specific to ex-military personnel similar to the Undergraduate veteran bursary scheme. (Paragraph 93)

22. We recognise the need to use all available options if teacher recruitment is going to increase in England. This must include international teachers, and efforts should be made to ease the pathway for international teachers to be recruited and to teach in English schools. For the teaching of Modern foreign languages, an English Baccalaureate (EBacc) subject in which the department has consistently missed its recruitment target, this is an essential part of the teaching recruitment cohort and there appears to be no rationale for cutting it off. (Paragraph 99)

23. We were encouraged by the ‘Apply for Qualified Teacher Status in England’ digital service launched in February 2023. We would like an update and review of the success of this service in response to this report. (Paragraph 100)

24. We are disappointed about recent changes to the international relocation payment which will exclude trainee teachers from the 2024 and 2025 academic years. We viewed this payment as a positive intervention to encourage the recruitment and training of international teachers in key subjects and do not view this decision as a step in the right direction. We urge the Department to review this decision and reevaluate the scheme’s potential to help in providing high quality teachers in our schools. In particular, we are concerned about the late notice given for this change and urge the Department to work closely with Universities to ensure that no students on their way to qualify as teachers in shortage subjects are lost as a result of this At a minimum, this change should not apply retrospectively and international candidates accepted prior to April 3rd 2024 should be able to continue on to their studies in September 2024 with these payments. (Paragraph 101)

25. The Department must also collaborate with other relevant government Departments to ensure routes and pathways into teaching for international teachers remain open, attractive, and easy to navigate. (Paragraph 102)

Teacher training and professional development

26. We are pleased that initial concerns that the initial teacher training review would result in ‘cold spots’ and further disparities have not come to fruition. We welcome the use of partnerships to allow de-accredited providers to merge with accredited providers in their region and we are happy with the growth of new providers entering the market. The Department should continue to monitor the impact of the Initial teacher training (ITT) reviews to ensure that regional capacity and the provision of Initial Teacher Education is sufficient. (Paragraph 109)

27. We recognise the need to get more people onto ITT courses; however, this should not be achieved by compromising on quality, and ITT providers should continue to uphold high entry standards. The Department should continue publicising teaching as a profession through broad advertising that focuses on teaching as a vocation more generally in order to attract high quality candidates. (Paragraph 111)

28. Criticisms of the Early Career Framework (ECF) such as repetition, lack of subject focus and the additional burden for mentors need to be addressed. We welcome action which has already been taken by the Department to tackle these issues, including reviewing the content of the Framework and removing duplicated material. (Paragraph 125)

29. The Department should continue to consult and engage with teachers for feedback on the Early Career Framework. We recommend that the content of the Early Career Framework is reviewed annually by the Department, and that duplicate material continues to be removed. The Department should also work with providers to develop and expand the subject specific elements of the Early Career Framework. (Paragraph 126)

30. For the mentoring aspect of the ECF we recommend that more time and resources are given to mentors, in order for them to provide early career teachers with the necessary time and support. Mentoring provides a key strength of the framework, but retention of experienced mentors will be key to its long-term success. (Paragraph 127)

31. The opportunity to partake in Continuing Professional Development (CPD) is crucial to teacher retention; we recognise, however, that pressure of workload and lack of spare time limits teachers’ engagement with CPD. We consider issues relating to teachers’ workload further in chapter 6. (Paragraph 137)

32. We also recognise that cost can prevent teachers from engaging with Continuing Professional Development. Consequently, we are concerned about the announcement that from Autumn 2024 funding for National professional qualifications (NPQs) will only be provided to teachers and school leaders at select schools. We urge the Department to rethink this decision to restrict funding for NPQs which can benefit teachers in every school, and we recommend that this decision is reversed so that funding is reinstated for all teachers to be able to benefit from NPQs. Further, we recommend that the Department creates standalone funding for NPQs so this is not reliant on temporary programmes such as the Department’s catch-up programme. (Paragraph 138)

33. We understand that when Continuing Professional Development is exclusively focused on leadership teacher retention can be undermined as teachers unwilling to take up such roles have limited opportunities for promotion or progression. We welcome the move towards more subject specific NPQs as well as the NPQ for special educational needs co-ordinator’s (SENco) that will be available from Autumn 2024. (Paragraph 139)

34. The Department should build on improvements in its Continuing Professional Development (CPD) offering and there should be more scope in the system for teachers to gain and maintain seniority through subject specialism. The Department should expand its subject specific NPQ offering beyond numeracy and literacy and establish clearer career progression pathways for teachers who want to focus on and develop within their subject, for example as head of subject within a year group or subject lead across their school. We would recommend that the Department consider further NPQs for subject leaders with cross disciplinary application such as heads of science or languages. (Paragraph 140)

Subject specific teacher shortages

35. We do not believe that the Department’s decision to reduce the postgraduate initial teacher training (PGITT) recruitment target for maths teachers between the 2021/22 and 2022/23 academic years was justified given the importance and priority the Government has given to maths. Government plans to make maths education compulsory until the age of 18 will inevitably increase demand for maths teachers so the reality of the challenge to recruit maths teachers must be acknowledged and appropriately acted upon. (Paragraph 146)

36. Targets for maths and other shortage subjects should not be reduced unless the shortage is reversed, and recruitment targets are met, over a sustained period of time. Considering Government plans for compulsory until the age of 18 the maths target must be increased substantially unless the Government can set out other plans for delivering functional or practical mathematics through an alternative cohort of teachers. (Paragraph 147)

37. High attrition rates in shortage subjects mean that a two-pronged approach is needed to address subject specific teacher shortages. This should look at the retention of existing teachers in addition to the recruitment of new teachers. Reliable data on the number of teachers leaving by subject and the reason for their departure are also needed, to better understand attrition rates. (Paragraph 150)

38. The Department should collect and publish data on the attrition of teachers by subject, particularly those in their first 5 years of teaching. Data should also be collected on the reason teachers are leaving, to improve understanding of why particular subjects are experiencing higher attrition than others and to help target retention strategies as effectively as possible. (Paragraph 151)

39. We have significant concerns about the negative impacts of subject specific teacher shortages. These include compromising the quality of teaching where subjects are being taught by teachers without subject expertise and the reduction of subject provision where schools do not have sufficient specialist teaching capacity. We also heard that lack of specialist teachers can have an adverse impact on take up of certain subjects. This is evidenced by modern foreign languages having the lowest take up by pupils when compared to other English Baccalaureate (EBacc) subjects. Out of the 86.2% of pupils who entered four of the five EBacc components 88.9% were missing the languages component in 2022/23. (Paragraph 163)

40. We know subject specific and regional teacher shortages persist and we acknowledge the Department’s interventions to address this. However, we have heard that there is limited data and understanding of how these shortages interact and where they overlap. Further analysis is needed to better target financial incentives, Initial Teacher Education provision and the Early Career Framework mentor programme. (Paragraph 165)

41. The Department should collect and publish data on regional subject shortages in teacher supply. This data should be used to inform the expansion of financial incentives such as the Early Career Payment and Levelling Up Premium according to where there are overlaps in regional and subject shortages. (Paragraph 166)

42. As discussed previously in this report, we have heard convincing evidence about the importance of interventions such as bursaries in targeting recruitment to subjects where there are teacher shortages. Bursaries should continue to be targeted towards subjects where there are shortages and shortages subjects should continually be reviewed to ensure bursaries remain where recruitment is most needed. The Department should increase the value of lower valued bursaries, particularly in subjects experiencing persistent shortages such as RE, DT and modern foreign languages. (Paragraph 175)

43. We recognise the positive impact both the Early Career and Levelling Up Premium Payments can have in improving teacher retention in subjects that are experiencing teacher shortages. In line with earlier recommendations in this report the Department should expand the Levelling Up Premium and Early Career Payments according to subject and regional demand. The eligibility criteria for these payments should be reviewed in order to adapt and respond to shortages. (Paragraph 180)

44. The Department should also analyse the impact of the Levelling Up Premium and Early Career Payments. There should be a particular focus on their regional impact, for example, to find out whether recruitment in places nearby education investment areas has been negatively impacted or resulted in ‘brain drain.’ (Paragraph 181)

45. We welcome the use of subject knowledge enhancement (SKE) programmes within Initial Teacher Training, where appropriate, as it is clear these programmes provide an opportunity to improve teaching capacity in subjects where there are specific issues in recruitment and retention. While it is important that these programmes are flexible in order to attract more individuals, high standards and quality must also be maintained. (Paragraph 193)

46. Subject knowledge enhancement programmes should be used where there are minor gaps in subject knowledge, for example, where individuals have a relevant A-Level or degree qualification. The Department should review current subject knowledge enhancement provision with the aim of balancing quality and flexibility of provision. This review should also look specifically at options for upskilling teachers in the areas of RSHE and financial education, as we have heard in evidence from our other inquiries that teachers would benefit from enhanced training in these areas. (Paragraph 194)

47. We strongly disagree with the Department’s decision to axe five subject options from the Department’s subject knowledge enhancement programme offering. Subject knowledge enhancement programmes are crucial in closing knowledge gaps to allow more people to teach in shortages subjects. We consider the removal of five subjects from this offering to undermine teacher recruitment efforts. We urge the Department to rethink this decision and reinstate funding for subject knowledge enhancement programmes in primary school maths, DT, English, biology and RE. (Paragraph 197)

48. Beyond the specific subject knowledge enhancement programmes that may be delivered within initial teacher training, upskilling is a useful and effective way for non-specialist teachers to gain the necessary knowledge to teach certain subjects once qualified. This approach has the potential to significantly mitigate the impact of subject specific teacher shortages. However, the current inconsistency of opportunities to upskill across subjects undermines its potential. (Paragraph 201)

Flexibility and workload

49. Upskilling should be used as a mitigation across subjects experiencing teacher shortages. For subjects such as Maths, a compulsory subject that has experienced persistent shortages in teacher supply it is even more pertinent that mitigations such as upskilling are used to manage teacher shortages. (Paragraph 202)

50. The Department should work with subject associations where there are current teacher shortages to coordinate support and funding efforts with the aim of developing upskilling opportunities across these shortage subjects. (Paragraph 203)

51. Since the pandemic, flexible working has been widely embraced across different professions and sectors of the economy. However, this has not been replicated in the education sector. If the education sector is to remain competitive, particularly in the recruitment of graduates, more must be done to increase opportunities for flexible working in schools. (Paragraph 208)

52. The Department have told us they will put flexibility at the heart of the new recruitment and retention strategy. This should include the promotion of existing approaches to flexibility that have been proven to be successful such as job shares and part-time working. However, it is clear that the education sector faces unique challenges; these include the high degree of in-person working it requires; issues around timetabling; and the significant and ongoing problem of high workload. The Department will need to find creative ways to address all of these if flexibility is to become a reality for teachers. (Paragraph 215)

53. We welcome the Department’s initial efforts to support flexible working through the Flexible Working Toolkit launched in summer 2023. However, with only 15% of senior leaders aware of its existence, and even fewer - only 4% - reporting that they found it useful, far more needs to be done to increase awareness of the toolkit amongst school leaders and ensure it is meeting their needs. (Paragraph 220)

54. The Department should redouble efforts to promote the Flexible Working Toolkit with school leaders, with flexible working ambassador schools playing a central role in this. In addition, this should be backed up with a strategy to monitor the extent to which schools are offering flexible working. We ask that the Government provides a full update on this in response to this report. (Paragraph 221)

55. There is a lack of understanding about how flexibility would impact schools, particularly the impact on pupils’ learning and school finances. Further information on this is required in order for school leaders to be able to implement flexible working policies with confidence that these are not going to have a negative impact on learning outcomes or school finances. (Paragraph 227)

56. The Department should commission research into the impact flexibility has on teaching and learning for pupils as well as teacher retention. Further research is also needed into the resource and financial implications of flexible working arrangements on the school budgets. (Paragraph 228)

57. We welcome the progress made towards reducing teachers working hours, acknowledging that the 5-hour reduction between 2016 and 2019 was a move in the right direction. However, workload remains a top concern for teachers. We welcome the Department’s ambition to reduce working hours by a further 5 hours but urge that this needs to be achieved much sooner than the Department’s 3-year target. (Paragraph 239)

58. We welcome the Department’s efforts to reduce workload through the Workload Reduction Toolkit. However, we are concerned about the lack of awareness of the Toolkit despite being published over five years ago. If more progress is to be made the Toolkit needs to be made accessible and easy to use so school leaders and teachers can properly benefit. (Paragraph 240)

59. The Department must continue to promote and build on existing efforts to reduce teacher workload. This should include condensing the Workload Reduction Toolkit, so it is more easily accessible for school staff. We endorse the Workload Reduction Taskforce recommendation that the DfE should “commit to enhancing knowledge and accessibility of the School Workload Reduction Toolkit, including improving the design for users and ensuring that case studies and resources remain relevant and include new, impactful, solutions that schools and trusts have implemented.” (Paragraph 241)

60. The Department should also put measures in place to monitor the implementation of strategies and solutions across schools and trusts. The listed recommendations from the Workload Reduction Taskforce should be introduced as a matter of urgency with the Department reviewing progress on this by Spring 2025. (Paragraph 242)

61. It is evident that accountability pressures contribute to additional non-teaching workload for teachers with perceived expectations undermining efforts to implement best practice around reducing workload. This persists despite guidance from the Department. (Paragraph 253)

62. The Department should increase myth busting efforts around Ofsted to reduce accountability related workload. The joint update from DfE and Ofsted that the Workload Reduction Taskforce recommendation should be published without delay and efforts to reduce the accountability related workload should be monitored on an ongoing basis. (Paragraph 254)

63. A wide range of non-teaching tasks are contributing to excessive teacher workload so efforts towards reducing teacher workload cannot be limited to reducing teaching hours or the Workload Reduction Toolkit. (Paragraph 259)

64. We are concerned that since the pandemic teachers are spending more time on addressing issues that would typically fall outside the remit of schools, including family conflict resolution and mental health support. Wraparound support must urgently be made more widely available and delivered by the appropriate organisations including local social care services and Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). (Paragraph 260)

65. We recommend the Department clearly defines the parameters of schools’ and teachers’ responsibilities. To support with issues that are not within the scope of schools’ responsibilities Wraparound support should be easily available and accessible. Schools and teachers should be able to easily signpost pupils or parents to other organisations better suited to address barriers to attendance, wider concerns or care, and improvements are needed in both awareness of and access to this type of support. (Paragraph 261)

66. Once again, we recommend that the Department leads a cross-government assessment of the scale of mental health difficulties amongst pupils and review the current provision of support available in schools and outside of them. The Government should conclude this review and report its findings by Autumn 2024. There then needs to be significant and well co-ordinated joint working across the Government and additional funding to ensure Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services provision is adequate to meet the needs of school age children, in line with the Department’s previous commitment to a 4-week waiting time for NHS mental health support for children. (Paragraph 262)

Pupil behaviour

67. Though the issue of poor pupil behaviour it not new, it has become worse since the pandemic with more disruptive pupil behaviour, school exclusions and suspensions. Poor behaviour not only undermines pupils learning and a positive classroom culture, but it also impacts teacher recruitment and retention. Reports of worsening behaviour have the potential to discourage prospective teachers from entering the profession and to contribute to existing teachers’ desire to leave the profession. (Paragraph 274)

68. The Department needs to reinforce the importance of positive and effective partnerships between schools, pupils and parents in addressing and improving pupil behaviour and attendance. This is particularly important for special educational needs and disabilities pupils who represent an increasing proportion of pupils. (Paragraph 277)

69. We recognise the importance of the work done through the behaviour hubs programme since 2020. Schools need practical advice and guidance on managing pupil behaviour and creating a positive behavioural culture. We recommend expanding the behaviour hubs programme to increase capacity and allow more schools to benefit from this programme, which could also help teacher retention. (Paragraph 284)

Appendix

285. List of eligible and non-eligible schools for levelling up premium payment (CSV, 476 KB).

Formal minutes

Wednesday 8 May 2024

Members present

Robin Walker, in the Chair

Caroline Ansell

Flick Drummond

Anna Firth

Nick Fletcher

Ian Mearns

Jess Phillips

Teacher recruitment, training and retention

Draft Report (Teacher recruitment, training and retention), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 284 read and agreed to.

Summary agreed to.

A Paper was appended to the Report as Appendix 1.

Resolved, That the Report be the Second Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available (Standing Order No. 134).

Adjournment

Adjourned till Tuesday 21 May at 9.30 am.

Witnesses

The following witnesses gave evidence. Transcripts can be viewed on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.

Tuesday 20 June 2023

Dr Mary Bousted, Joint General Secretary, National Education Union; Professor Dame Alison Peacock, Chief Executive Officer, The Chartered College of Teaching; Dr Patrick Roach, General Secretary, NASUWTQ1–20

Paul Whiteman, General Secretary, NAHT; Julie McCulloch, Director of Policy, Association of School and College Leaders; Jenny Sherrard, National Head of Equality and Policy, University and College UnionQ21–57

Tuesday 11 July 2023

Russell Hobby, CEO, Teach First; Melanie Renowden, CEO, National Institute of Teaching; Dr Annabel Watson, Associate Professor in Language Education, University of Exeter; Dr Jasper Green, Associate Professor (Teaching) and Head of Initial Teacher Education, IOE, UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society; Richard Gill, Chair, Teaching School Hubs CouncilQ58–116

Tuesday 12 September 2023

Professor Rene Koglbauer, Chair of Board of Trustees, Association for Language Learning; Professor Paul Glaister CBE, Immediate Past Chair, Joint Mathematical Council of the UK; Deborah Weston OBE, Research Officer, National Association of Teachers of Religious Education; Ryan Ball, Director of Education, Design and Technology Association; Hari Rentala, Head of Learning and Skills, Institute of PhysicsQ117–148

Tuesday 14 November 2023

Philip Nye, Data Scientist, Institute for Government; Katie Waldegrave, MBE, Co-founder and CEO, Now Teach; Dr Luke Sibieta, Research Fellow, Institute for Fiscal StudiesQ149–186

Sinéad Mc Brearty, Chief Executive Officer, Education Support; Jack Worth, School Workforce Lead, NFER; Professor Becky Francis CBE, CEO, Education Endowment Foundation; Professor Becky Allen, Chief Analyst and a Co-founder, Teach TappQ187–234

Tuesday 12 December 2023

Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP, Minister of State for Schools, Department for Education; Sue Lovelock, Director of Teaching Workforce: Candidates, Trainees, Strategy, Portfolio and Analysis, Department for EducationQ235–301

Published written evidence

The following written evidence was received and can be viewed on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.

TTR numbers are generated by the evidence processing system and so may not be complete.

1 Ambition Institute (TTR0124)

2 Ambitious about Autism (TTR0114)

3 Anonymised (TTR0022)

4 Anonymised (TTR0002)

5 Ark (TTR0137)

6 Association for Citizenship Teaching (ACT) (TTR0035)

7 Association of Professional Staffing Companies (Global) Ltd (TTR0026)

8 Association of School and College Leaders (TTR0112)

9 Bailey, Ruth (PGCE Director, University of Bristol); Ball-Smith, Claire E (Director of initial Teacher Training, University of York); Black, Bryony (Director of ITE, University of Sheffield); Brooks, Clare (Professor of Education, Institute of Education, University College London (UCL)); Burn, Katharine (Director of PGCE, University of Oxford); Gibbons, Simon (Director of ITE, Kings College London); Haines, Jon (Joint ITE programme Lead, University of Newcastle); Hepton, Fiona (Joint ITE Programme Lead, University of Newcastle); Hetherington, Lindsay (Deputy Head of School and Head of Initial Teacher Education, University of Exeter); Howes, Andy (Head of ITE, University of Manchester); Ireland, Kate (Director of the Centre for Teacher Education, University of Warwick); McIntyre, Joanna (Professor of Education, University of Nottingham); Mutton, Trevor (Director for Graduate Studies, University of Oxford); Newman, Rachele (Director of Initial Teacher Education, University of Southampton); Reading, Catherine (Director of Professional Programmes, Durham University); Sullivan, Stefanie (Deputy Head of School and Director or ITE, University of Nottingham); and Winterbottom, Mark (Deputy Head of Faculty and Secondary PGCE Programme Leader, University of Cambridge) (TTR0074)

10 Ball, Ms Sheila (Graduate Teaching Assistant, Leeds Beckett University) (TTR0105)

11 Belgeonne, Mr Clive (Associate Lecturer, Sheffield Hallam University) (TTR0133)

12 Bishop Grosseteste University (TTR0051, TTR0069)

13 British Association for Early Childhood Education (Early Education) (TTR0083)

14 Catholic Education Service (TTR0129)

15 Chitty, Dr Andrew (Independent Researcher, University of Northampton); and Maunder, Dr Rachel (Independent Researcher, University of Northampton) (TTR0139)

16 Community Policy Forum (TTR0143)

17 Coventry Education Partnership (TTR0122)

18 Cox, THE VENERABLE John (Retired, Church of England) (TTR0030)

19 Cronin, Sue (Director of Quality and Accreditation, Liverpool Hope University) (TTR0073)

20 Crowley, Mr Mark (Senior Lecturer in Science Education, Nottingham Trent University); Richards, Dr Ruth (Senior Lecturer in Science Education, Nottingham Trent University); and Baker, Mrs Philippa (Senior Lecturer in Science Education, Nottingham Trent University) (TTR0043)

21 Daly, Professor Caroline (Director Centre for Teachers and Teaching Research, UCL Institute of Education); Ovenden-Hope, Professor Tanya (Provost and Professor of Education, Plymouth Marjon University); Leftwich-Lloyd , Sharon (Lead Practitioner, The Polesworth School); McCleod, Emily (PhD Researcher, UCL Institute of Education); See, Beng Huat (Professor, University of Durham); and Maude, Kulwinder (Assistant Professor, University of Durham) (TTR0113)

22 Department for Education (TTR0148)

23 Dr Challoner’s Grammar School / The Astra SCITT and Teaching School Hub (Buckinghamshire) (TTR0009)

24 Durham University Evidence Centre for Education (TTR0034)

25 EDT (TTR0110)

26 Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) (TTR0038)

27 Education Intelligence - Teacher Tapp (TTR0135)

28 Education Policy Institute (TTR0138)

29 Education Select Committee (TTR0154)

30 Education Support (TTR0054)

31 Eteach (TTR0102)

32 Field Studies Council (TTR0081)

33 Fullard, Dr Joshua (Assistant Professor, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick) (TTR0063)

34 Gatsby Charitable Foundation (TTR0109)

35 Goldsmiths, University of London (TTR0040)

36 Graves, Terry (TTR0021)

37 Green, Professor Francis (Professor of Work and Education Economics, UCL); Huxley, Dr Katy (Research Fellow, Cardiff University); and Felstead, Professor Alan (Research Professor, Cardiff ~University) (TTR0024)

38 Hertfordshire’s Standing Advisory Council on RE (SACRE) (TTR0050)

39 Hetherington, Associate Professor Lindsay (Deputy Head of the School of Education and Head of Initial Teacher Education, University of Exeter); Wong, Dr Victoria (Senior Lecturer in Science Education , University of Exeter); Allan, Associate Professor Alexandra (Head of School, School of Education, University of Exeter); Watson, Dr Annabel (Senior Lecturer in Education, University of Exeter); Flanagan, Ruth (Primary Programme Director, University of Exeter); Warren, Dinah (Secondary Programme Director, University of Exeter); and Greaves, Corinne (Partnership Director, University of Exeter) (TTR0082)

40 Historical Association (TTR0033)

41 Howes, Dr Andrew (Head of Initial Teacher Education, Manchester Institute of Education at the University of Manchester); Strickland, Hannah (Lecturer in Initial Teacher Education, Manchester Institute of Education at the University of Manchester); Hindle, Bob (Lecturer in Education, Manchester Institute of Education at the University of Manchester); Phillips, Dr Rebecca (Co-Director, Primary PGCE, Manchester Institute of Education at the University of Manchester); and Beswick, Karen (Senior Lecturer in Initial Teacher Education, Manchester Institute of Education at the University of Manchester) (TTR0101)

42 Howson, Prof John (Chief Executive, Oxford Teacher Services Ltd (TeachVac)) (TTR0006)

43 Humanists UK (TTR0107)

44 Humphries, Mr Stuart (Teacher , St Benedicts Catholic High School) (TTR0018)

45 IOE, UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society (TTR0094)

46 Independent Society of Musicians (ISM) (TTR0058)

47 Institute for Fiscal Studies (TTR0127)

48 Institute of Physics (TTR0099)

49 Johnson, Mr Craig (Teacher of Computer Science, Nottingham High School) (TTR0027)

50 Kenyon, Mr Joel (Teacher of Science/Community Cohesion Lead, Dormers Wells High School) (TTR0016)

51 Khulisa (TTR0118)

52 Kingston University (TTR0056)

53 Liverpool John Moores University (TTR0011)

54 London & South East Education Group (TTR0098)

55 MacLeod, Teacher recruitment amongst young people Emily (PhD Researcher, IOE, UCL’s Faculty of Education & Society) (TTR0066)

56 Mallalieu, Mrs Sarah (Teacher, SENDCo, Head Teacher, Primary; and Teacher, SENDCO, Head Teacher, Primary) (TTR0068)

57 Manchester Metropolitan University (TTR0145)

58 Maratos, Professor Frances (Professor in Psychology and Affective Science, University of Derby) (TTR0052)

59 Mathematics in Education and Industry (MEI) (TTR0079)

60 McCarthy, Miss Hannah Ruth (Lecturer in Education, Carnegie School of Education, Leeds Beckett University) (TTR0007)

61 McDowell, Dr Joanne (Principal Lecturer, University of Hertfordshire); and White, Dr Elizabeth (TTR0039)

62 Men and Boys Coalition (TTR0136)

63 MillionPlus (TTR0089)

64 Minoli, Professor Dr. FRSB CSciTeach Marina B. A. (Professor Dr. FRSB CSciTeach , Biologists Order Federation - STEM DIDAINNOVABIOLAB) (TTR0008)

65 Muslim Teachers Association (TTR0045)

66 NAHT (TTR0049)

67 NASUWT (TTR0084)

68 NRICH, University of Cambridge (TTR0010)

69 National Association of Independent Schools and Non-Maintained Special Schools (NASS) (TTR0097)

70 National Association of School-Based Teacher Trainers (NASBTT) (TTR0093)

71 National Deaf Children’s Society (TTR0077)

72 National Education Union (NEU) (TTR0140)

73 National Foundation for Educational Research (TTR0090)

74 National Governance Association (TTR0142)

75 National Institute of Teaching (TTR0128)

76 National Network of Parent Carer Forums (TTR0130)

77 Now Teach (TTR0126)

78 Nuffield Foundation (TTR0144)

79 Ofsted (TTR0078)

80 Ovenden-Hope, Professor Tanya (Provost and Professor of Education, Plymouth Marjon University) (TTR0120)

81 Pan London ITE Network (TTR0055)

82 Parkin, John (Senior Lecturer Practitioner in Education, Anglia Ruskin University Peterborough) (TTR0121)

83 Parle, Mr Phil (Green Skills for the Future in Construction Project Lead, Association of Colleges) (TTR0028)

84 Period Positive (TTR0053)

85 Policy Connect (TTR0151)

86 Protect Pure Maths (TTR0065)

87 Randstad Public Services (TTR0106)

88 Reconnect London (TTR0085)

89 Research in Primary Languages (TTR0095)

90 Royal Society of Biology (TTR0071)

91 Royal Society of Chemistry (TTR0067)

92 SSAT (The Schools, Students and Teachers Network) (TTR0041)

93 STEM Learning (TTR0048)

94 School of Education, Communication and Society, King’s College London (TTR0070)

95 School of Global Studies and School of Education and Social Work, University of Sussex (TTR0125)

96 Schools North East (TTR0080)

97 Skills Builder Partnership (TTR0059)

98 Spicksley, Dr Kathryn (British Academy Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Oxford Brookes University); and Kington, Professor Alison (Professor in Psychology of Education , University of Worcester) (TTR0088)

99 Teach First (TTR0146)

100 Teach the Future (TTR0032)

101 Teacher Development Trust (TDT) (TTR0103)

102 Telhaj, Doctor Shqiponja (Associate Professor , Department of Economics, University of Sussex) (TTR0072)

103 The Association for Physical Education (TTR0119)

104 The Association for Science Education (TTR0132)

105 The Bell Foundation (TTR0086)

106 The Chartered College of Teaching (TTR0111)

107 The Council for Subject Associations (CfSA) (TTR0091)

108 The National Association for Special Educational Needs (nasen) (TTR0096)

109 The National Association of Teachers of RE (NATRE); RE Council of England and Wales (REC); AULRE; Culham St Gabriel’s Trust; and RE Today Services (TTR0141)

110 The National Society for Education in Art and Design (TTR0062)

111 The Ogden Trust (TTR0116)

112 The Royal Society (TTR0104)

113 The Sutton Trust (TTR0100)

114 Turing House School (TTR0036)

115 UCAS (TTR0117)

116 UCL Centre for Educational Leadership, University College London (TTR0087)

117 Understanding Society, the UK Household Longitudinal Study (TTR0149)

118 Universities Council for the Education of Teachers (UCET) (TTR0037)

119 Universities UK/GuildHE Teacher Education Advisory Group (TEAG) (TTR0061)

120 University Alliance (TTR0123)

121 University and College Union (UCU) (TTR0023)

122 University of East Anglia (TTR0131)

123 University of Roehampton (TTR0005)

124 University of Sunderland (TTR0047)

125 University of Sussex (TTR0147)

126 University of York (TTR0076)

127 Watson, Mr Alex (Science Teacher, Falinge Park High School, Rochdale) (TTR0003)

128 West London Teacher Training Alliance (TTR0064)

129 White, Dr Elizabeth (Principal Lecturer, University of Hertfordshire) (TTR0044)

130 Wigan and West Lancashire Catholic School Direct (TTR0012)

131 Worcestershire Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education (SACRE) (TTR0092)

132 York St John University (TTR0042)

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament

All publications from the Committee are available on the publications page of the Committee’s website.

Session 2023–24

Number	Title	Reference
1st Report	Ofsted’s work with schools	HC 117
1st Special Report	Persistent absence and support for disadvantaged pupils: Government response to the Committee’s Seventh Report	HC 368
2nd Special Report	Ofsted’s work with schools: Ofsted response to the Committee’s First Report	HC 624
3rd Special Report	Ofsted’s work with schools: Government Response to the Committee’s First Report	HC 689

Session 2022–23

Number	Title	Reference
1st Report	Not just another brick in the wall: why prisoners need an education to climb the ladder of opportunity	HC 56
2nd Report	Educational poverty: how children in residential care have been let down and what to do about it	HC 57
3rd Report	The future of post-16 qualifications	HC 55
4th Report	Careers Education, Information, Advice and Guidance	HC 54
5th Report	Support for childcare and the early years	HC 969
6th Report	Appointment of His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills	HC 1800
7th Report	Persistent absence and support for disadvantaged pupils	HC 970
1st Special	Is the Catch-up Programme fit for purpose?: Government response to the Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2021–22	HC 273
2nd Special	Not just another brick in the wall: why prisoners need an education to climb the ladder of opportunity: Government response to the Committee’s First Report	HC 645
3rd Special	Educational poverty: how children in residential care have been let down and what to do about it: Government response to the Committee’s Second Report	HC 854
4th Special	The future of post-16 qualifications: Government response to the Committee’s Third Report of Session 2022–23	HC 1673
5th Special	Careers Education, Information, Advice and Guidance: Government response to the Committee’s Fourth Report	HC 1848
6th Special	Support for childcare and the early years: Government response to the Committee’s Fifth Report	HC 1902

Session 2021–22

Number	Title	Reference
1st Report	The forgotten: how White working-class pupils have been let down, and how to change it	HC 85
2nd Report	Appointment of the Chief Regulator of Ofqual	HC 512
3rd Report	Strengthening Home Education	HC 84
4th Report	Is the Catch-up Programme fit for purpose?	HC 940
1st Special Report	Strengthening Home Education: Government Response to the Committee’s Third Report	HC 823

Session 2019–21

Number	Title	Reference
1st Report	Getting the grades they’ve earned: Covid-19: the cancellation of exams and ‘calculated’ grades	HC 617
2nd Report	Appointment of the Children’s Commissioner for England	HC 1030
3rd Report	A plan for an adult skills and lifelong learning revolution	HC 278
4th Report	Appointment of the Chair of the Office for Students	HC 1143
1st Special Report	Special Educational Needs and Disabilities: Government Response to the Committee’s First Report of Session 2019	HC 668
2nd Special Report	Getting the grades they’ve earned: COVID-19: the cancellation of exams and ‘calculated’ grades: Response to the Committee’s First Report	HC 812
3rd Special Report	A plan for an adult skills and lifelong learning revolution: Government Response to the Committee’s Third Report	HC 1310

Footnotes

1 Education Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2016–17, Recruitment and retention of teachers,HC 199

2 Committee of Public Accounts, Third Report of Session 2016–17, Training new teachers, HC 73

3 Department for Education, Teacher recruitment and retention strategy, January 2019

4 Department for Education, Initial teacher training (ITT): core content framework, November 2019

5 Department for Education, Initial teacher training and early career framework, January 2024

6 Department for Education, Initial teacher training (ITT) market review report, July 2021

7 Department for Education, Early career framework, January 20219

8 Department for Education, Initial teacher training and early career framework, January 2024

9 Department for Education, Leading behaviour and culture NPQ framework, October 2020

10 Department for Education, Education staff wellbeing charter, May 2021

11 Department for Education, School workload reduction toolkit, July 2018

12 Department for Education, flexible working toolkit resources, June 2023

13 Q236

14 Department for Education, School workforce in England

15 Department for Education School workforce in England 8 June 2023

16 Q1

17 Q21

18 evidence to the School Teachers Review Body (STRB) for 2023

19 Q149

20 NFER comments on new school workforce census data

25 Department for Education (TTR0148)

26 Q268

27 Institute for Fiscal Studies What has happened to teacher pay in England? Institute 11 January 2023

28 Q158

29 Secondary school teachers’ real pay across the OECD: 2010 - 2020

30 Institute for Government analysis of ONS for Retention in public services How can government keep workers in the NHS, schools and police? Report, figure 15

31 Q10

32 National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, Pay scale (England), 2023

33 Q177

34 Education Support, Commission on Teacher Retention, June 2023

35 Q3

36 Department for Education (TTR0148)

37 Q283

38 Education Select Committee (TTR0154)

39 Q147

40 Q283

41 Department for Education School Teachers’ Review Body 33rd report: 2023 13 July 2023

42 Department for Education Government Evidence to the STRB Department February 2023

43 National Education Union, STRB remit letter, 21 December 2023

44 Association of School and College Leaders, STRB must not feel constrained by remit letter, 21 December 2023

45 Q25

46 Department for Education, Schools’ Costs 2023–2025 February 2024

47 Schools Week School support staff unions accept £1,925 pay deal 2 November 2023

48 Institute for Fiscal Studies Annual report on education spending in England: 2023 11 December 2023

49 Department for Education Schools’ costs 2022 to 2024 February 2023

50 Headteacher Update School funding: Teaching assistants in the firing line… Headteacher Update 11 January 2023

51 Education Select Committee (TTR0154)

52 Times Educational Supplement Teaching assistant pay: Unions call for 10% rise 11 January 2023

53 Institute for Government Retention in public services 9 October 2023

54 Education Support Commission on Teacher Retention

55 Department for Education (TTR0148)

56 Department for Education (TTR0148)

57 Q58

58 In October 2023 the DfE announced they would be reintroducing ITT bursaries for RE worth £10,000 for the 2024–25 ITT recruitment cycle which has been welcomed by NATRE.

59 Dr Jasper Green (UCL IOE) in HC 1207 Deborah Weston OBE (NATRE) in HC 1207

60 Universities Council for the Education of Teachers (UCET) (TTR0037)

61 Q240

62 Q185

63 National Foundation for Educational Research Teacher training bursaries are effective at supporting long-term teacher supply 9 November 2023

69 Department for Education Early-career payments for teachers 5 October 2019

70 Department for Education Levelling up premium payments for school teachers 13 May 2022

71 Q245

72 Q220

73 Q221

74 For further information, please see the Get Into Teaching website.

75 Department for Education (TTR0148)

76 Education Select Committee (TTR0154)

82 Department for Education Teacher Degree Apprenticeships: how they work and when to apply 4 February 2024

83 Q174

84 Q185

85 Schools Week Now Teach: DfE axes funding for recruitment programme 28 April 2024

86 Schools Week Now Teach: DfE axes funding for recruitment programme 28 April 2024

87 Schools Week Now Teach: DfE axes funding for recruitment programme 28 April 2024

88 PQ 17304 [on Teachers: Veterans] 6 March 2024

89 Q253

90 Q117

91 Education Select Committee (TTR0154)

92 Q117

93 Schools Week DfE ‘inexplicably’ cuts back £10k teacher ‘relocation premium’ 3 April 2024

94 Department for Education Delivering worldclass teacher development March 2022

95 Initial teacher training (ITT) market review report

96 Clare Brooks and Jane Perryman, Teacher recruitment policies: accelerating issues of spatial justice in England Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, (2024) pp.1–15

97 Universities Council for the Education of Teachers (UCET) (TTR0037)

98 ITT review: DfE rejects all accreditation appeals

103 National Foundation for Educational Research ITT reforms haven’t been catastrophic - but fears remain 29 November 2023

104 Education Policy Institute The reaccreditation of ITT providers: Implications for STEM subjects Institute 8 December 2022

105 Schools Week, Reject fewer teacher applicants, DfE tells trainers

106 Q64

107 Q64

108 Q255

109 Department for Education Teacher Recruitment and Retention Strategy 2019

110 Q230

111 Department for Education Early Career Framework January 2019

112 Q208

113 Department for Education Early career framework induction evaluation 26 May 2022

119 Education Intelligence - Teacher Tapp (TTR0135)

124 IOE, UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society (TTR0094)

125 Department for Education (TTR0148)

126 Q33

127 Education Intelligence - Teacher Tapp (TTR0135)

128 Q16

129 Associate Professor Lindsay Hetherington (Deputy Head of the School of Education and Head of Initial Teacher Education at University of Exeter); Dr Victoria Wong (Senior Lecturer in Science Education at University of Exeter); Associate Professor Alexandra Allan (Head of School, School of Education at University of Exeter); Dr Annabel Watson (Senior Lecturer in Education at University of Exeter); Ruth Flanagan (Primary Programme Director at University of Exeter); Dinah Warren (Secondary Programme Director at University of Exeter); Corinne Greaves (Partnership Director at University of Exeter) (TTR0082)

130 Q58

131 Q59

132 SSAT (The Schools, Students and Teachers Network) (TTR0041)

144 Department for Education, Initial Teacher Training Census 7 December 2023

145 Department for Education (TTR0148)

146 Education, Initial Teacher Training Census 7 December 2023

147 Q118

148 Correspondence from Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP to Chair of the Education Select Committee January 2024

149 Q121

150 Q122

151 Q122

152 Guardian, 44% of teachers in England plan to quit within five years, 11 April 2022

153 Q123

154 Q288

155 Q263

156 The NFER have argued that additional factors such as experience teaching a subject, or knowledge acquired without a formal qualification, should also be considered by the Department as in some circumstances this is sufficient to teach a specialist subject. For example, a teacher whose native language is a Modern Foreign Language (MFL) would not be considered a specialist teacher by the Department for Education without a degree in that MFL

157 Q124

158 Q263

159 National Foundation for Educational Research, Use of non-specialist teachers could have negative impact on learning, 22 November 2022

160 Protect Pure Maths (TTR0065)

165 Q66

166 National Foundation for Educational Research, Teacher supply and shortages: the implications of teacher supply challenges for schools and pupils, 22 November 2022

167 Q66

168 Protect Pure Maths (TTR0065)

169 Q145

170 This was up from 87.5% in 2021/22 and 86.0% in 2018/19

171 Department for Education Key stage 4 performance 1 February 2024

172 Q122

173 Q146

174 Q134

175 National Foundation for Educational Research Retaining Science, Mathematics and Computing teachers , November 2019

176 The National Association of Teachers of RE (NATRE), RE Council of England and Wales (REC), AULRE, Culham St Gabriel’s Trust, RE Today Services (TTR0141)

177 Q134

178 Institute of Physics (TTR0099)

188 Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities, UCL, The effect of financial incentives on the retention of shortage-subject teachers: evidence from England, April 2022

189 Q87

190 D&T Association, D&T Association’s ‘Vision’ for the future of the subject in English Schools, 2023

191 Q129

192 Q87

193 Department for Education (TTR0148)

194 Q262

195 Associate Professor Lindsay Hetherington (Deputy Head of the School of Education and Head of Initial Teacher Education at University of Exeter); Dr Victoria Wong (Senior Lecturer in Science Education at University of Exeter); Associate Professor Alexandra Allan (Head of School, School of Education at University of Exeter); Dr Annabel Watson (Senior Lecturer in Education at University of Exeter); Ruth Flanagan (Primary Programme Director at University of Exeter); Dinah Warren (Secondary Programme Director at University of Exeter); Corinne Greaves (Partnership Director at University of Exeter) (TTR0082)

196 Q258

197 Mr Mark Crowley (Senior Lecturer in Science Education at Nottingham Trent University); Dr Ruth Richards (Senior Lecturer in Science Education at Nottingham Trent University); Mrs Philippa Baker (Senior Lecturer in Science Education at Nottingham Trent University) (TTR0043)

198 Institute of Physics (TTR0099)

199 Institute of Physics (TTR0099)

200 Associate Professor Lindsay Hetherington (Deputy Head of the School of Education and Head of Initial Teacher Education at University of Exeter); Dr Victoria Wong (Senior Lecturer in Science Education at University of Exeter); Associate Professor Alexandra Allan (Head of School, School of Education at University of Exeter); Dr Annabel Watson (Senior Lecturer in Education at University of Exeter); Ruth Flanagan (Primary Programme Director at University of Exeter); Dinah Warren (Secondary Programme Director at University of Exeter); Corinne Greaves (Partnership Director at University of Exeter) (TTR0082)

201 Institute of Physics (TTR0099)

202 Schools Week, Teacher training top-up courses slashed as DfE cuts costs, 21 March 2024

203 Schools Week, Teacher training top-up courses slashed as DfE cuts costs, , 21 March 2024

204 Schools Week, Teacher training top-up courses slashed as DfE cuts costs, , 21 March 2024

205 Q130

206 Institute of Physics (TTR0099)

207 Q130

208 Q141

209 Department for Education (TTR0148)

210 Q297

211 Q208

212 Q294