School building boom is over

Posted on March 19, 2026 by John Howson

The DfE has published its latest estimates of school capacity for 2024/25, together with estimates for places needed up to 2029/30 School capacity in England: academic year 2024 to 2025 – GOV.UK

There are two sets of numbers. One looks at both need and places available and calculates what might be regarded as a raw score. This looks at all spare places, regardless of location within the authority and measures that number against expected additional need. The second set just looks at additional need.

During the period between 2025/26 and 2029/30, most additional need is likely to come from changes in the housing stock, with little, if any, growth from the increase in the number of pupils in the relevant age groups. As a result, most local authorities show either no need for additional primary places or only small increases in numbers. Wandsworth is the only Inner London borough with any additional need for primary school places during the period 2025/26 and 2029/30.

The table balancing existing places with additional need shows only a handful of local authorities with a reduction in the spare capacity in the primary sector between 2025/26 and 2029/30. For most authorities, the spare place problem is expected to be worse in 2029/30 than it is in 2025/26

	net spare places
Oxfordshire	Primary	Secondary
2025/26	-11,052	-6,321
2026/27	-11,557	-6,449
2027/28	-13,117	-6,959
2028/29	-13,865	-7,143
2029/30	-14,601	-7,336

Change	-3,549	-1,015

The table shows the estimates for Oxfordshire. Several factors could mean these data are not going to be accurate. In recent years, Oxfordshire has seen significant housebuilding, and if the construction of new housing continues, and attracts families from outside the county, then the spare places may be an overestimate.

Oxfordshire is also home to several military bases for both the army and the RAF. Although defence planning has projected the closure of some of the army bases, the current defence review and increased spending on defence might either slowdown or reverse the closure of some of the bases. If closures slow down, then this might mean pupil numbers don’t fall as expected.

The problem for both the local authority, the dioceses and the academy trusts is that Oxfordshire has many small primary schools located in villages. Often the school is the only facility left in the community. The present funding formula that is heavily biased towards pupil numbers poses a potential problem for small schools. Academy trusts can ‘vire’ funds between schools to help such schools through any temporary downturn in pupil numbers. At present local authorities do not have this ability: they should be given the power to support small village schools in the same way as MATs can.

However, as with many other rural areas, school closures look likely over the next few years if schools are not to run up deficit budgets. Such deficits would be paid off by depriving future pupils of some of their funding. With education spending likely to be squeezed to accommodate the increase in defence spending, and a greater proportion of the school funding going toward SEND pupils, there may well be some hard decisions to make.

With declining interest in established faiths, how will the dioceses react to falling rolls, if their schools are no longer viable?

One certainty is that if any school closures require additional free transport to the next nearest school, the current£20 million Oxfordshire council tax payers contribute to fund mainstream school transport will not be enough, even if fuel and other costs remain stable.

Local government reorganisation may offer a way out for politicians in areas such as Oxfordshire, but politicians in urban areas, and especially in London will not be so lucky. Time to dust off my review of falling rolls in Haringey in the 1970,s and the lessons to be learnt from those battles.

NEETs: A North East crisis?

Posted on March 18, 2026 by John Howson

There is no doubt that although higher than they could be, NEET percentages are lower than before the raising of the learning leaving age in 2013.

However, NEET rates are nowhere near uniform across the country. In Quarter 4 of 2025, the quarter after 16 year olds have decided whether to stay in education, find an apprenticeship or become economically inactive, NEET rate in the North East of England were more than twice the rate of the of those in the South West, according to the government’s Labour Force Survey.

‘NEET and NET Estimates from the LFS’ for 16 to 24 and Q4 for 2025

		Q4
		England	North East	North West	Yorkshire and The Humber	East Midlands	West Midlands	East of England	London	South East	South West
16 to 24	Percentage of population NEET	13.3%	21.0%	14.0%	15.6%	16.5%	13.5%	11.7%	12.0%	11.5%	9.9%
16 to 24	Confidence interval (95%) for the percentage NEET	0.9%	4.6%	2.7%	2.9%	3.3%	2.8%	2.5%	2.6%	2.1%	2.4%

Footnotes

LFS data has been reweighted from January 2019 onwards. There is a discontinuity in the timeseries at this point and comparisons to earlier data should be considered with caution.
All estimates should be viewed alongside associated 95% confidence intervals as shown in the underlying data. Create your own tables on neet age 16 to 24 – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK

It seems likely that the rate for males is higher than that for females, although the recent government decisions that have made working in retail and hospitality more of a challenge than before the tax changes may well be pushing up the female rate of NEETs.

It would be interesting to see whether the move from school to a college is seen as more of a challenge for males than females?

Also of interest, but not identifiable from the data, are whether the rate of NEETs for 16-17 year olds is higher in rural areas with poor transport than in urban areas with excellent public transport to college or workplace?

My hunch is that transport costs play a part in some young people becoming NEETs. I have written elsewhere about the punitive effect of motor insurance tax on young people with no possibility of a no-claims bonus. Perhaps, the tax should not be imposed on those under 18 forced to use their own transport because of where they live?

Raising the age for free transport to school and college from 16 to 18 might also encourage more participation, and would be a small cost to pay, as it would just mean more students on existing transport.

Finally, it would be interesting to see the rate of NEETs for those with EHCPs? Do special schools do a good job for their post-16 students when compared with those with EHCPs in mainstream schools? Are those with an EHCP more likely to become a NEET if they attend an 11-16 or an 11-18 school?

These are interesting questions where it is challenging to find the data to answer the questions that will affect policy decisions.

ITT: What the poster doesn’t say

Posted on March 16, 2026 by John Howson

I saw several of these posters on York railway station this weekend.

The station seems like a good place to advertise, as York has a large number of university students passing through the station, but I hope the course organisers managed to negotiate a good deal, given the number of posters I saw in and around the station.

I thought the poster lacked a ‘call to action’. Just adding a QR code isn’t enough for me. Why not an arrow to the QR code with ‘click here for more details?’ As it is, the QR code is just sitting there, not doing much.

If I saw the poster, as a possible teacher, two things I might want to know, but are not told, are ‘how much does the training cost’ and ‘will I be guaranteed a job if I am successful?’

I guess the answers to both questions might be so off-putting as to be sensible to leave off the poster. However, as this was York, the starting salary and some idea of what top salaries in teaching are these days might have been a pull factor.

The DfE is currently spending money – not sure how much – promoting their vacancy website as the place to go to for teaching jobs. Might they also want to create a generic poster for railways stations in other university towns to encourage graduates to think about teaching as a career, rather that leaving it ITT providers to do so?

Finally, I am now sure about the strap line of ‘inspiring tomorrow’s teachers today’. It is certainly a catchy phrase, but it doesn’t do much for me.

While in York, this past weekend, I summated one of the amendments to the Lib Dem conference motion on tuition fees. The amendment called for student debt forgiveness for those that work in the public sector for ten years. In my speech, I also suggested the idea of Tuition Fee credits for student on Free School Meals for the whole of their secondary school career.

Sadly, I didn’t have time to remind conference that between 1997 and 2010, graduates training to be a teacher on programmes such as those run by Exchange Teacher Training had their tuition paid by the government. Personally, I believe that both trainee teachers and medics should have their fees for post first degree study paid by the government or at least repaid as soon as they start work in state-funded locations. After all, we pay army offices during their training, why not teachers and medics?

Gender expectations: alive and well in T Level courses?

Posted on March 11, 2026 by John Howson

The DfE has released data about entrants to ‘T Level’ courses starting in 2025. T Level and T Level foundation year entrant data 2025 to 2026 – GOV.UK

What is striking about the data are the gender disparities between different courses, and how much work among this group of young people and their families may still need to be undertaken if stereotypes are to be confronted.

For instance, 95.6% of those starting the Education and Early Years course were female, whereas 96.9% of those starting the Building Services Engineering for Construction course were males. Males also dominated the three digital courses, whereas the craft and design course participants were 90.4% female. Males made up two thirds of the Agriculture Land Management and Production, but only 19.7% of the Animal care and Management

There was more parity in courses such as Media Broadcast and Production, the Science courses and, interestingly, the overall total ended up 49.3% female and 50.7% male!

The DfE note that 27,446 learners started T Levels in the 2025 to 2026 academic year, up from 25,508 in the 2024 to 2025 academic year. This represents a 7.6% increase in entrant numbers. From the time series data, it looks as if more women are now taking these qualifications.

Table 3: T Level entrants split by T Level pathway and legal sex, 2024 to 2025 academic year

Route	Pathway	Female	Male
Agriculture Environmental and Animal Care	Agriculture Land Management and Production	35.8%	64.2%
Agriculture Environmental and Animal Care	Animal care and Management	80.3%	19.7%
Business and Administration	Management and Administration	42.7%	57.3%
Construction	Building Services Engineering for Construction	3.1%	96.9%
Construction	Design Surveying and Planning for Construction	17.5%	82.5%
Construction	Onsite Construction (discontinued)	6.9%	93.1%
Creative and Design	Craft and Design	90.4%	9.6%
Creative and Design	Media Broadcast and Production	43.8%	56.2%
Digital	Digital Data Analytics (formerly Digital Business Services)	12.9%	87.1%
Digital	Digital Software Development (formerly Digital Production Design and Development)	12.0%	88.0%
Digital	Digital Support and Security (formerly Digital Support Services)	8.0%	92.0%
Education and Early Years	Education and Early Years	95.6%	4.4%
Engineering and Manufacturing	Design and Development for Engineering and Manufacturing	9.2%	90.8%
Engineering and Manufacturing	Engineering Manufacturing Processing and Control	12.0%	88.0%
Engineering and Manufacturing	Maintenance Installation and Repair for Engineering and Manufacturing	9.7%	90.3%
Health and Science	Health	91.8%	8.2%
Health and Science	Science	53.4%	46.6%
Health and Science	Healthcare Science	72.1%	27.9%
Legal Finance and Accounting	Accounting	34.5%	65.5%
Legal Finance and Accounting	Finance	22.6%	77.4%
Legal Finance and Accounting	Legal Services	64.6%	35.4%
Total		49.3%	50.7%

There are now going to be ‘V Levels’ to add to the mix of qualifications that young people can study for after the age of sixteen. Should we be more worried about the gender split in courses more closely linked to careers than for academic subjects, or doesn’t it matter at all?

Personally, after thirty years of trying to change attitudes to career choices, I find this data somewhat disheartening, especially as the majority of classroom teachers in secondary schools are now women. It seems as if teachers cannot override stereotyping, and we need to do more careers and work experience to challenge entrenched attitudes.

Highest paid staff in academies: one LA area

Posted on March 10, 2026 by John Howson

Each year academies and MATs are required to publish their accounts. These accounts include a table showing the salary bands for staff paid more than £60,000. Each year, I track the changes for academies and MATs across one geographical area. Sadly, the table isn’t complete for 2025, as a small number of schools and MATs still have not seen their account for 2024/25 published at Companies House.

MAT	highest salary band in annual accounts
	SALARIES 2024	2025	difference
1	£90,000	£100,000	£10,000	11%
2	£140,000	£151,000	£11,000	8%
3	£140,000	£160,000	£20,000	14%
4	£180,000		£0	0%
5	£260,000	£270,000	£10,000	4%
6	£110,000	£120,000	£10,000	9%
7	£90,000		£0	0%
8	£120,000	£140,000	£20,000	17%
9	£130,000	£130,000	£0	0%
10	£170,000	£250,000	£80,000	47%
11	£90,000	£100,000	£10,000	11%
12	£150,000	£170,000	£20,000	13%
13	£90,000	£110,000	£20,000	22%
14	£120,000	£120,000	£0	0%
15	£130,000	£150,000	£20,000	15%
16	£140,000		£0	0%
17	£160,000	£190,000	£30,000	19%
18	£120,000		£0	0%
19	£190,000	£200,000	£10,000	5%
20	£90,000		£0	0%
21	£120,000		£0	0%
22	£130,000	£120,000	-£10,000	-8%
23	£140,000		£0	0%
24	£140,000	£150,000	£10,000	7%
25	£190,000	£210,000	£20,000	11%
26	£150,000	£160,000	£10,000	7%

In 2023/24 the bands for highest paid staff member in an academy or MAT in this group of academies ranged from £90-100,00 to £260,000-£270,000. In 2024/25 the range, so far, is from £100,000-£110,000 to £270,000-£280,000.

Ten of the 26 reporting bodies (there were 17 with details for both years) saw an increase of more than 10% in the band in which their highest earner was placed. This took at least six of the reporting bodies into a band above that of the salary of the Director of Children’s Services in the authority.

Of course, the salary does not reveal the number and size and complexity of schools within the MAT, not all of which are within the geographical area of the local authority where the schools studied are located. However, there does seem to be an element of the Wild West and Frontierland in general around the issue of salaries for senior leaders.

This lack of control over public spending by the DfE mirrors a long-standing refusal to grasp the nettle of what is an Executive Headteacher, and how should they be remunerated.

If the direction of travel, foreshadowed in the recent White Paper comes about, and all schools become academies, then the DfE will be directly responsible for all schools. If such a situation comes about, then there will need to be clear rules about how much freedom over the spending of public money should be allowed.

Regiments don’t bid up the pay of their colonels, and the salaries for most public sector jobs are not subject to the vagaries of the market: it’s time to look again at how senior staff in the school sector are paid.

Is it justifiable to pay Chief Executives of MATs more than Directors of Children’s Services? Should there be a book of some colour that Trustees of MATs should consult when deciding pay and conditions, and other employment matters. Or should the market remain the deciding factor in deciding the employment rights of the leaders of our state schools in England?

Fine the accountants

Posted on March 9, 2026 by John Howson

Both stand-alone academies and Multi Academy Trusts use private sector accountants to audit their accounts. Each year, a number of MATs and academies are tardy in publishing their accounts at Companies House, where anyone can view the school or MATs handling of public money.

In my experience, it is the same MATs and schools that keep everyone waiting each year and this delay prevents any useful analysis of how schools are using their funds in particular geographical areas.

As usual, I am still waiting to see the accounts for seven sets of accounts for the schools in the geographical area where I track all non-community schools. These missing accounts are mostly the accounts from the same set of schools that were slow in appearing last year and the year before.

I think it is high time that the DfE, now responsibly directly for the funding of academies after the closure of the EFSA, takes some action to ensure all accounts, save those where there are legitimate queries, are posted by the end of January each year. That’s five months after the end of the accounting year, and should provide sufficient time for all accounts to be prepared.

How to deal with those accountants that don’t file by the required date: fine them. The notion of fining for late delivery of documents is well known and accepted. After all, HMRC will happily fine anyone not delivering their tax return by the due date, so why not fine private sector accountants for not filing these accounts on time.

The consequences would be that either the fine was passed on to the school or MAT or the accountants declined to continue handling the accounts in future years. Either way, the fine should help to instal financial discipline in those schools in the non-community part of the state school sector that are either being ignoring or possibly even flaunted the deadlines at present.

With the recent White Paper once again raising the spectre of all schools becoming academies – one wonders how foundation Schools view that prospect – installing financial discipline from day one should be something the National Audit Office needs to confirm with the DfE is not just a nice thing to have, but a necessity. The NAO might well decide to qualify the DfE’s accounts if it cannot see the accounts for all directly funded state schools within the prescribed time frame.

In my next post, I will consider how salaries for the top earners in MATs within one area have changed between the 2024 and 2025 accounts. With secondary schools now regularly advertising their headship with a starting salary of more than £100,000, and some on even more than £150,000, it is important to know whether Chief Executives of MATs, and executive headteachers are now regularly earning more than the Directors’ of Children’s Service in local authorities.

I guess that they are also earning more than the civil servants that have the ultimate power over the school sector. One wonders what should be the multiple between the salary of the lowest full-time worker in a school and the headteacher? In many case, it cases the multiple is now more than a factor of ten, between the lowest and highest paid staff members in a school: is this too great a gap?

What the first 1,000 headteacher adverts tell us

Posted on March 8, 2026 by John Howson

Between the DfE vacancy site – the DfE claims 98% of schools now use their site – and other leading job boards, I have collected details of 1,000 vacancies for headteacher posts advertised since the start of August 2025.

In the past, the three months from January to March were the most active months for headteacher vacancies, and that may well prove to be the case in the 2025/26 school year.

If the present level of vacancies continues as expected, then the annual total for headteacher vacancies will be around the 1,500 mark for 2025/26. The exact number will depend upon the number of schools that fail to make an appointment after advertising a vacancy and re-advertise.

To some, extent the degree of re-advertising that occurs will depend upon the mix of schools seeking a new headteacher, and the size of that sub-pool. However, the larger the number in the pool, the easier it is to predict trends.

What can be deduced from the first 1,000 vacancies this school year?

As expected, primary schools dominate the list, accounting for 628 of the first time vacancies, and 64 of the re-advertisements – a re-advertisement rate of 10%. Secondary schools accounted 182 first time vacancies, and 16 re-advertisements, a rate of nine per cent, and higher than I would have expected.

In view of the concerns over SEND, it is unfortunate that the 72 first time vacancies for headteachers of special schools have already produced some 21 re-advertisements, a rate of 29%, including a couple of schools that have re-advertised twice.

Interestingly, none of the 13 First schools, and none of the 21 infant schools with a recorded vacancy has seen a re-advertisement to date. In the past such vacancies have proved challenging to fill. This is still the case for junior schools headteacher vacancies, where the 38 vacancies have already generated four re-advertisements.

Nationally, the re-advertisement rate overall stands at 11%. However, that percentage already masks some regional differences.

Region RE-ADVERTISENTS 1ST ADVERT % RE-ADVERTISMENTS

SE	7	99	7%
SW	8	103	8%
WM	9	108	8%
YH	13	118	11%
NW	15	125	12%
EM	11	94	12%
L	15	99	15%
EE	19	110	17%
NE	4	31	13%
ENGLAND	101	887	11%

The percentage for the North East is affected by two special schools that have re-advertised. London, and the area to the north and east of the capital has seen the highest level of re-advertisements so far, although re-advertisement rates for schools to the south and west of the capital are, to date, much lower.

Faith schools have found recruiting a new headteacher more challenging than non-faith schools. Church of England schools have a re-advertisement rate of 13%, and Roman Catholic schools, one of 16%, compared with the overall rate of 11%.

I had wondered, with vacancies being viewed on-line these days, whether it was a smart move to advertise a vacancy in December, as perhaps candidates might use the holiday period to start job-hunting.

An analysis of the 136 vacancies tracked as appearing for the first time in December, shows that 19 schools, or 14%, have had to readvertise their vacancy, so although no longer expensive in terms of placing a vacancy on the DfE website, ‘the early bird does not always seem to catch the worm’.

Finaly, the highest starting salary recorded so far is £140,000, and 90 schools have offered a starting salary of more than £100,000. At the other end of the scale, the lowest starting salary in an advertisement for a headteacher was £51,773.

Despite staring salaries in excess of £100,00, some 14 of these schools have re-advertised their vacancy for a headteacher. Money, it seems may not be enough to attract a suitable applicant for some schools.

The war: bad news for schools?

Posted on March 6, 2026 by John Howson

The longer the current conflict, centred around Iran, continues, the more anxiety there must be within the DfE. After all, the DfE is the second largest spending department, after spending on the NHS and Social Care. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) ranks as the third largest spending department.

Recent trends within the DfE have included increased expenditure on special needs, and post 16 schemes to reduce the number of NEETS. I assume there is also monitoring the implications of falling rolls in the school sector under way.

I guess that there might have been some hope that one trend – more spending on SEND – might be balanced by less spending on the core school grant as a result of falling rolls. By abolishing a separate High Needs Block, the additional SEND spending could disappear into the core grant, leaving schools to sort out the mess on the ground.

This is not the post to discuss the relationship between DfE and NHS spending on SEND, and how the 2014 Act, unless amended, could be used by parents to hobble school’s discretion on how they meet the education requirements of pupils with EHCPs, especially if the Tribunal Service remains as it currently is. Suffice to say, there will become a point where SEND funding starts to impact on the rest of the DfE’s budget that is, if the total spend doesn’t increase.

Digression aside, my main concern is the extent to which increased spending on defence could hit the DfE’s budget? Spending on schools’ accounts for the lion’s share of the DfE’s budget, and I cannot see how it can remain unaffected as spending on the MoD increases, as it now inevitably will do, however short-lived the current war is.

There are also pressures from within the school system as a result of the White Paper’s non-SEND initiatives to be taken into account. I don’t know whether anyone has worked out the full cost of every school becoming an academy. But replacing 150 with 160+ local authorities after local government reorganisation, with perhaps ten times than number of academy trusts won’t come cheap.

Using civil servants to administer the system will be more expensive than using local government officers. One only has to look at the £38mn it cost to run the EFSA, and the £14mn it costs to run the Teacher Regulation Agency to wonder whether anyone in Whitehall has done the maths on full academisation of schools?

However, it is the military situation that must be the real concern for schools. Let’s assume that going forward the MoD needs an extra £15bn per year in expenditure in order to meet is 5% target of government expenditure: possibly even more if conscription is again on the agenda, after being through ruled out during the 2024 election campaign.

Increase defence spending, and unless the government has spare revenue to play with, and it seems likely that other budgets will be hit. Ring fence SEND spending, and what might be the consequences?

As staffing is the biggest item in any school’s budget, in the end any further slowdown in spending may well leave schools facing a choice between cutting low paid non-teaching staff or high paid teachers, burdened with student loan debt.

So, what might we see.

MATs closing schools that cost more to run than they bring in from funding steams and ‘unofficial’ parent support. At present, any transport costs will be incurred by local authorities, so that won’t deter closures.

Schools axing courses that cost more to run than the share of pupil funding they generate. On the wider scale, this might affect small sixth forms. After all, these are often staffed by the most expensive teachers, and can be a financial drain on the resources for Key Stages 3 and 4.

Will MATs be more ruthless than local authorities when it comes to closing small sixth forms, because they have no councillors worried about re-election demanding a school retain its sixth from? This is likely to be a real issue for Reform in the south of England where 11-18 schools are the norm. If Reform want a return to selective schools that also will come at a price.

If SEND spending is ring-fenced, and demand for EHCPs for mental health issues continues to grow, at some point it will eat into the funding for other pupils. At what point will there be a pushback?

Of course, a quick war, and peace in the Middle East, plus a less bellicose Russia, might mean there will be no threat to funding for schools. And government income might rise to cover the extra spending. Who knows, but it is better to hope for the best, and plan for the worst.

If I use Pupi Teacher Ratios as a measure of what might happen, then the unwinding of the benefits of the peace dividend since the late 1990s might have a more profound effect on the primary school sector than on secondary schools, although my guess is that neither sector will be unaffected. (PDF) PTRS OVER TIME: A REVIEW OF PUPIL TEACHER RATIOS BETWEEN 1974 AND 2024 AND TWO PERIODS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RE-ORGANISATION PTRS OVER TIME: A REVIEW OF PUPIL TEACHER RATIOS

The other interesting question is what will happened to salaries, and how far the outcome of national salary discussions will fetter schools spending choices? Perhaps one for another blog to discuss in more detail.

Attendance and Behaviour Hubs: a DfE initiative

Posted on March 3, 2026 by John Howson

One of the government initiatives that I have just caught up with is the one around attendance and behaviour hubs. The DfE announcement in December when the programme was announced said that:

The regional improvement for standards and excellence (RISE) attendance and behaviour hubs programme is a national initiative designed to support schools in improving pupil attendance and behaviour.

Led by schools with strong practice, it aims to:

support school leaders to reflect on current systems
share effective practice
implement changes

It is aimed at senior leaders with responsibility for attendance and behaviour who are seeking to strengthen their school’s leadership, culture and systems. RISE attendance and behaviour hubs programme – GOV.UK

Yesterday, the DfE updated the list of lead schools, so I took a look at these schools in the South East Region. Today’s list has five primary and five secondary schools as lead hubs.

The secondary schools are located in:

West Sussex

Milton Keynes

Medway

Slough

Portsmouth

Two of these schools are non-selective schools in a location with selective schools; four schools are under-subscribed, with the fifth school having 1150 pupils against a roll of 1058, and it is a faith school.

The five primary schools are located in

Kent – 2

East Sussex

West Sussex

Medway

All have at rolls of at least 400 pupils, although three of the schools are nowhere near their capacity.

How these schools will spread good practice across the region from Milton Keynes to the Isle of Wight and from Oxfordshire to Bracknell Forest will be an interesting challenge.

One option not open to them will be the device used in the Durham coalfield in the 19^th century and recorded on the noticeboard of the school now housed in the Beamish Living Museum.

The notice reads

The following notice has been received from Mr Chatt, on behalf of the Education Committee: –

“Those schools whose average attendance for the preceding month has reached 92% may grant a half-holiday on the first Friday of the month.”

Looking at the DfE’s data for Oxfordshire, the average attendance from September 2025 to start of February 2026 was 95.1% for primary schools; 91.5% for secondary schools and 88.8% for special schools.

On the basis of that data some primary schools would have qualified for the half-day in at least one month. Possibly some secondary schools might have done so as well.

However, it is worth remembering that the schools receiving the notice were Elementary Schools, taking pupils from 5 to 13 or 14, depending upon the school leaving age at the time of undated message. Attendance by the older pupils was probably as much of a challenge in the 19^th century as it is today; albeit for different reasons.

Time to review funding for trainee teachers

Posted on March 2, 2026 by John Howson

It has been interesting to watch the current debate about higher education, and the level of debt incurred by students studying for a degree. Throughout the recent debate, I don’t think I have seen any reference to the 2019 Auger Committee report Independent panel report to the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding set up by Theresa May when she was Prime Minster. Interestingly, I wrote a blog about the report after it was published, and you can read it here. Lower Fees: a threat to teacher education? | John Howson

My major concern at the time, back in 2019, was the Committee’s recommendation to reduce tuition fees to a maximum of £7,500 per year, and what that reduction might do to the funding of teacher preparation courses.

The recent debate about higher education funding has been around repayment levels and student debt, and Auger had a great deal to say about both that issue and the balance between the needs of the individual and the funding of higher education by the State. Suffice to say, the Committee ducked the issue of RPI versus CPI – leaving the decision to the Treasury. Had they had a crystal ball about the future direction of inflation, one wonders whether they might have been more assertive for a change?

However, their recommendation that interest not be calculated during a period of study, although the principal amount of the loan should still be increased in real terms, in order to reflect inflation, would have helped reduce repayments.

The recommendation of a cap on repayments would also have been useful in making clear how much the State would recover. However, the Committee did recognise that the system favoured well-paid graduates, as the sooner the loan was paid off, the lower the interest charges incurred.

As the Committee noted on page 174 of their Report.

“In the words of the Treasury Select Committee Report into student loans: “…the civil servant, the teacher and the accountant pay broadly similar amounts for their loan, but a graduate joining a “magic circle” law firm pays less, owing to rapid pay growth in the early stages of their career.” House of Commons Treasury Committee (2018) Student Loans: Seventh Report of Session 2017-19, p15.

Regular readers will know that I have always maintained that making many, but not all, trainee teachers incur a fourth year of student debt, not required of other public servants has been a mistake, and a drag on recruitment into teaching and thus a damper on the economy of the country, as too many pupils fail to fulfil their full potential when taught by less than fully qualified teachers in certain subjects.

For several months now, I have been advocating the return of a bursary for trainee music teachers, to help stem the falling recruitment in that subject.

Realistically, I believe all teacher preparation courses should be debt-free. I also endorse Auguer’s recommendation that student debt should not carry interest payments while a person is studying an approved course.

The present debate about student funding will have alerted many would-be teachers to the fact that they will be paying interest on their loans while training to be a teacher, and also paying interest on the student loans for their teacher preparation courses. With starting salaries for teachers above the threshold for repayments, teaching doesn’t look like a worthwhile investment, and many are still not signing up to become teachers.

I would urge the government to look into the current funding model for trainee teachers, and to make it a level playing field for all, with no new debt, and no additional interest on undergraduate loans while studying to be a teacher.