ITT: Do bursaries work?

Posted on July 27, 2026 by John Howson

Following on from the July data on postgraduate ITT preparation courses, Initial teacher training application statistics for courses starting in the 2026 to 2027 academic year – Apply for teacher training – GOV.UK I thought that I would publish a few charts showing the number of offers made over time for key subjects. The first two are biology and chemistry

The difference this year is stark: Record offers in chemistry, and the second lowest since 2013/14 cycle for offers in biology. This suggests the presence or absence of a bursary may affect the choice of subject by some scientists that is related to the presence and amount of a bursary.

Music is a subject where the removal of the bursary has reduced the number of offers being made, although there was a slight uptick this month. Fortunately, the significant cut to the target means that there should still be enough applicants to meet the target.

Finally, geography is another subject where the target won’t be met this year. The chart shows why very clearly.

If the aim of the government is to ensure that ITT targets are met in every subject, and not just selected subjects, then there needs to be a rethink about the bursary system.

However, the bursary system is unfair to those studying other subjects in a manner that the public sector does not apply to other areas of recruitment and training.

It is time to bring teacher preparation into the 21^st century: pay all trainees a living wage, and prevent over-recruitment in some subjects and the associated pressure on the Student Loan Fund.

ITT: more home applicants still needed in some subjects

Posted on July 27, 2026 by John Howson

What do geography and classic have in common? Based on the July data on numbers accepted for places on postgraduate teacher preparation courses, there won’t be enough applicants to meet the DfE target in these subjects. These two subjects are joined, in my estimation, by drama, business studies, religious education, and the catchall ‘other subjects’.

Despite some 57,765 applicants this cycle recorded in the July data, released by the DfE this morning, the teacher supply crisis cannot be said to be over until every subject has sufficient trainees to meet the DfE’s targets. Initial teacher training application statistics for courses starting in the 2026 to 2027 academic year – Apply for teacher training – GOV.UK

The table shows my views about outcomes, based upon the July 2026 data for numbers accepted by subject. I haven’t included primary, because I don’t think there will be an issue with that sector, where acceptances for ‘general’ primary courses are up from 10,359 in July 2025 to 10,481 this July.

Subject	Target 2026/27	July offers	Fill: July view	July Accepted	Fill on accepted
Chemistry	690	1460	YES	1302	YES
Biology	675	629	PROBABLY	466	POSSIBLY
Mathematics	2000	2953	YES	2567	YES
Design & Technology	620	701	YES	630	YES
Art & Design	605	709	YES	590	YES
Geography	685	549	NO	466	NO
Classics	75	45	NO	37	NO
English	1980	1835	POSSIBLY	1535	POSSIBLY
Drama	370	318	POSSIBLY	263	NO
Business Studies	1200	357	NO	267	NO
Music	260	266	YES	220	YES
Religious Education	450	349	NO	294	NO
Others	2035	508	NO	414	NO
History	520	1112	YES	952	YES
Modern Languages	1085	1363	YES	1172	YES
Physics	810	1600	YES	1438	YES
Physical Education	655	1551	YES	1326	YES
Computing	565	961	YES	808	YES

The late announcement of the ITT targets may have had some effect on provider outcomes. Acceptances are down in all age groupings, save for the 22 year-olds, where the increase is a mere five more acceptances than in July last year – this difference may be down to the date the report was run: the 20^th July this year.

Overall acceptances are down from 25,422 in July 2025 to 24,048 this July, a reduction of more than 1,400.

Previous posts have discussed the significant percentage of applicants listed as from the ‘Rest of the world’. This month the number accepted from the ‘Rest of the world’ group was 1,662 compared with 1,657 last July. Because of the increase in applications from this group, the percentage ‘accepted’ has dropped from 19% of the group last July, to 12% in July 2026.

Growth in the number of applications from students in the home regions, apart from London, has remained sluggish, and has actually fallen in two regions (North East and Yorkshire & The Humber).

Taken as a whole, these are a mixed set of outcomes. July is sufficiently far through the recruitment cycle to make predictions about outcomes, as already highlighted.

Despite fears of graduate unemployment, the post finals period doesn’t seem to have resulted in a significant increase in home student applicants. Home students remain the key to ensuring all subjects are able to fill their target number of places. Even with the reduction is places in some subjects, as a result of ‘falling rolls’, as indicated earlier, not all subjects will hit their targets in this cycle.

The previous Secretary of State seemed to pay little attention to teacher supply issues. I hope that the present office holder will ask her civil servants, ‘what do we need to do to assure sufficient trainees across the board, but not far too many in history and physical education; and why is there such variation from year to year in the biology and chemistry numbers, even if, this year there might be enough to fill all the ‘science’ places’.

Finally, it may be that applicants are starting to vote with their feet in favour of routes into teaching that don’t require the acquisition of further debt.

Applications by route	2026 cycle	2025 cycle	difference	Accepted July 2026
Partner Led	17419	17977	-558	4162
SCITT	16812	16867	-55	6315
HE	33719	33723	-4	11692
Salaried	8169	7634	535	311
Degree apprenticeships	1935	1079	856	1342
Apprenticeships	11944	7335	4609	234
All applications	89998	84615	5383

However, the sector has not been able to respond to this trend, and courses incurring additional debt still dominate the routes into teaching. It is time for this to change. Incidentally, the government must now concede that higher educations till plays the dominant role in teacher preparation, something the recently appointed UCET leaders will no doubt be keen to remind the new Secretary of State about.

Lucy Powell: a bad start

Posted on July 25, 2026 by John Howson

I know the Secretary of State for Education has only been in post for less than a week, and is obviously learning the ropes, so perhaps the following appeared in her predecessor’s red box for sign off. Nevertheless, it doesn’t look like a good start.

Conditions of grant: intensive training and practice grant for accredited ITT providers – GOV.UK

Publishing a ‘conditions of grant’ information to ITT providers on the 23^rd July for courses starting this September seems a very poor piece of management. I know this is not a new grant, but there seem to be new demands that might involve re-arranging elements of courses at extremely short notice.

Now, you can argue, ITT providers should have already incorporated these elements into their courses, and I am not aware if any warning was given to providers of the changes ahead. No doubt someone can tell me in the comments.

The cash is also small beer compared with the fees for training, but for larger providers wanting to claim in excess of £40,000 the audit requirement do seem a bit onerous. Fortunately, smaller provider can self-certify, but must keep full records, adding to their burden.

These seem like sensible requirements, so the real issue is the timing. Do civil servants not understand the rhythm of the school year? Have these same civil servants considered how courses are planned, and the need to work in partnership between the ITT provider, whether school, university or private provider. Each and every school being used will need to see trainees practice adheres to the new requirements.

This will be challenging enough for secondary schools, but at least many will be back at work by the time the exam results season comes round in mid-August. However, I suspect making adjustments will be more of a challenge for primary schools involved in ITT placements. Of course, trainees won’t be in school on day one in September, but making changes at the very busy start of the school-year is not ideal.

Perhaps the new Secretary of State could consider an embargo on any new changes for the school-year being introduced more than a month before the end of the summer term or after the 30^th June, whichever comes first.

It would be a shame to see any ITT provider threatened with de-accreditation for failing to meet the requirements of a grant only notified to them less than six weeks before the start of their courses, and during the middle of the key employer-driven flexitime period, when most are required to take annual leave.

Civil servants can take leave at any time, teachers and ITT staff cannot, and the DfE should respect that fact. Placing any extra requirements on schools and ITT staff at this time of year is poor policy-making in practice.

Hopefully, the Secretary of State will listen to the concerns about timing raised by schools and the ITT sector, and make sure grant requirements are not imposed during the summer holiday period, unless absolutely necessary; I don’t think this change is in that category, and the DfE should make clear any changes do not need to come into force until January 2027, allowing reasonable time for planning.

Are state school headteachers overpaid?

Posted on July 22, 2026 by John Howson

Do you think headteachers are overpaid. After all, some can now earn in excess of £150,000. Indeed, in September 2027, the top of the scale for the highest paid headteacher will be £163,629, plus any additional uplift as a bonus, or health insurance, or any other non-cash benefits. On top of the salary there is the contributable pension benefit, and employer driven flexitime for leave. However, the latter might be more of disincentive rather than a benefit. (see Holiday advice – no use for teachers | John Howson )

Well, a basic salary of £163,629 for leading a large school in inner London is a lot of money. But what about at the other end of the scale. A new headteacher responsible for the smallest school could start on as little as £62,438 in September 2027. In reality, the starting salary is more likely to be slightly more than that basic figure.

How does the salary for a headteacher of a small school compare with the salary of teachers not on the Leadership Scale? In September 2027, it will be possible for a teacher to earn £54,421 outside the London area without any additional allowances. This is a difference of £8,017 or less than 20% to the salary of a headteacher of a small school.

For the extra salary, the headteacher sacrifices the limitations on their workload under pay and conditions rules, and in most cases takes on both a teaching and leadership role, usually without the support of a deputy headteacher. That doesn’t look like a very big differential to me.

How has headteacher pay changed over time?

In my 25^th Annual survey of senior staff appointments in schools across England and Wales, published by the TES in January 2010, I noted the first advert with a salary of £60,000 was in the mid-1990s. In today’s money that would be £124,000. By 2008, some 60 schools were offering a starting salary of £100,000 or more. Such a salary for September 2008 would equate to a salary of almost £168,000 today. Inflation calculator | Bank of England

In 2008, the STRB recommended a starting salary for a headteacher of the smallest schools of £40,494. Today that would be worth just over £68,000 or approaching ten er cent more than their current expected starting salary in September 2027, by which time inflation will have further increased the disparity. (STRB 17th Report Part 1, page 134).

To answer the original question: are state school headteachers overpaid? It depends upon two factors, where you take the starting date, and whether there has been any grade inflation between the two measuring points.

On the face of it, secondary headteachers, have fared better than their colleagues in the smallest primary schools, especially if any extra duties and responsibilities acquired over time have been shared with the leadership team. The headteachers of the smallest schools probably don’t have a leadership team to whom they can pass on any extra work, so they may not have been fully recompensed for additional work.

When I come to review the turnover of headteachers during 2025/26, I will be paying especial attention to the salaries on offer.

Free bus transport to age 16: a mistake?

Posted on July 19, 2026 by John Howson

Rumours are flying around that our new Prime Minister wants to mandate free bus travel for everyone up to the age of sixteen. This would just leave those between 18 and some point in a person’s 60s paying for public transport.

Why do I question whether this policy is a mistake? Not because I think it is wrong, it isn’t, although it suffers from the same issues as any other universal benefit, by including those that could pay for the service, as well as those that benefit. Still, that issue can be dealt with through general taxation, something our previous Prime Minister never seemed to realise when creating the Winter Fuel Allowance debacle that set him on the road to the end of his premiership.

In the case of free bus travel, could this be someone that Mr Burnham has looked at through the lens of an urban mayor, with little lifetime experience of rural areas?

Free bus transport should be extended to age 18, not stop at 16, in order to come into line with the official, but not statutory, learning leaving age. If David Blunkett is advising Mr Burnham, he should be pressing this case as a former distinguished Secretary of State for Education.

If Mr Burnham wants to reduce the number of NEETs, making them pay to travel to college after Year 11 won’t help his case, especially in rural areas, where there may not even be a bus service. If Mr Burnham is to be a Prime Minister for the country, and not just a Labour Prime Minster, then he must understand the needs of all young people, regardless of where they live.

I have suggested before, that 16-18 year olds in rural areas wanting to go to college, where there is no possible bus route, face a real deterrent. My advice was to remove motor Insurance tax from vehicles taxed in the name of a 16-18 year old, and for their sole use.

Mr Burnham should also make it clear how any policy about free bus travel would link to parental choice of schooling? Again, free travel in urban areas means parental choice is not an issue, but it is in rural areas where free travel to the ‘nearest school’ has been the norm since 2014.

The small group that really needs a change in policy to align with the principle of free bus travel to 18 are those young people living in rural areas with selective schools. Kent, springs to mind, along with Essex, Buckinghamshire and Gloucestershire.

In these areas, taking the selection test for secondary school is seen as a parental choice, and doesn’t therefore qualify for free transport. This is an attack on the less well off working and living in rural areas. If Mr Burnham wants to mandate free transport for all to age 16 or, as I prefer 18, anyone living in a rural area and passing the selection test for a selective school should be provided with free transport.

Of course, Mr Burnham could be really brave, and reintroduce the 1976 Education Act, associated with the late Shirely Williams, and require all secondary schools to be non-selective, except in few isolated cases of national schools for certain talents in music, ballet and dance. Mr Blair’s government never saw the need to make that change, but, perhaps, Mr Blunkett might now have his opportunity to make the change with such a large Labour majority at Westminster.

Free transport to 16, is good, but not good enough, please, make it free transport to 18, at least to an approved education facility.

Train to be a teacher: worth the risk?

Posted on July 16, 2026 by John Howson

The DfE today published their annual look at trends in the school population. Release home – National pupil projections – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK The school population is principally affected by changes, either upwards of downwards, in the birth rate. Changes in migration also plays a small part, but can be more important in certain locations. Thus, the reduction of the number of families accompanying students will affect some university towns more than the overall numbers.

As these are projections from the DfE are based on data from The Office for National Statistics (ONS), they are the result of considerations of various factors, of which changes in the birth-rates is the most significant. The gloomiest set of predictions are shown in the table below.

On these assumptions, the primary and secondary school sectors will lose 473,00 and 249,000 pupils respectively between 2026 and 2031. This is a total reduction of more than 700,000 in a school population of 7.8 million at the start of the period. By 2032, the school population may dip below seven million for the first time in a long while.

As the chart shows, the school population is heading for its lowest number this century. The key question is whether or not, by the end of the 2030s, the school population will fall back to a level not seen since the mid-1980s. On current trends that outcome seem very likely.

My guess is that HM Treasury will use the ‘population dividend’ to reduce spending on schooling by clawing back the funding for the missing pupils. Over the period to 2031, this might account for some £5billion available for social services and defence, yet still leave a bit over for improving school funding slightly.

Fewer children mean fewer teachers, and we have already seen the DfE slash targets for ITT. This will likely reduce the number of providers at some point, as some providers will be unable to operate effectively, both financially and in terms of group sizes, and will exit the market.

Falling rolls also mean fewer vacancies, if numbers leaving the profession remain at a constant rate in relation to pupil numbers. Falling rolls also likely mean fewer promotion opportunities, so more teachers may stay put in their current post. With the current age profile for the profession, there is also no sign of a retirement boom to help turnover.

Were the falling pupil numbers to mean a wholesale closure of small primary schools, then that might further reduce the promotion opportunities for teachers in the primary sector.

If the sector keeps to government ITT targets, then most trainees should find a teaching post – we will know the latest details for employment rates at the end of the month when provider profile data are released – but in the primary sector, where over-recruitment into ITT has been the norm, and in some secondary subjects, too many teachers may be chasing too few vacancies.

So, is it worth the risk of taking on extra student debt to train as a teacher? Certainly not, if you can find a route that offers a salary, and a better chance of a teaching post after training. Otherwise, there is a risk to assess.

I would advise all potential teachers to quiz providers offering them a place on an ITT course about the provider’s track record of employment for their specific course, and not just the overall rate into employment.

Of course, a teaching qualification can lead to a teaching career anywhere in the world, it might just be harder to find a job in England, and certainly in parts of London.

London schools and challenging pupils: better outcomes than elsewhere?

Posted on July 14, 2026 by John Howson

Yesterday, I wrote a blog post about the rate of exclusions and suspensions from schools in London and the other regions of England of pupils eligible for Free School Meals as a part of a series about whether better funded schools were able to keep more of their pupils in schools. As promised in that post, I have also looked at the position with regard to the main ethnic, groups and a few of the less considered sub-grouping. Are London schools overfunded? | John Howson

As the following table shows, the picture for London is much more mixed with respect to the different ethnic groupings than for pupils eligible for Free School Meals.

London had the lowest rate of suspensions for five ethnic groups in the primary school sector, and four in the secondary school sector.

In respect of permanent exclusions, where rates are generally very low, and a single exclusion can affect the rate significantly, London had the lowest rate in six of the nine ethnic groups for the primary school sector and was joint equal in a seventh group. In the secondary school sector, London had the lowest rate in only two categories, but was joint lowest in another three groups- mostly were there were no permanent exclusions in this group in a number of regions, including London.

The position in special schools was somewhat different, as shown in the table.

London was not the lowest region in any ethnic grouping in ‘suspensions’ in the special school sector, and was only joint lowest in ‘permanent exclusions’. In most cases there were no permanent exclusions in these groups in any of the regions listed as ‘joint’ lowest, including in the London region. As pupils may attend some special schools from different local authorities to that where they live, and the funding for such schools is not through the ‘School Block’ but was through the discredited ‘High Needs Block’, it is difficult to read anything into the results for the special school sector, except to say that no other region has the same level of outcome as the London region.

London schools contain a much more ethnically diverse group of pupils than schools in some other of the English regions, notably the North East and South West regions. Despite this fact, or possible because the familiarity of dealing with pupils from a wide range of different ethnic groups, often in the same classroom, and sometimes having come to school in England from war-tern or other challenging environments, have meant policies are in place to deal with situations that were less common outside the capital’s schools, London as a region still outperformed any other region in terms of being in lowest place of any region either on its own or in joint lowest position.

One can wonder: is this due to the funding being better than elsewhere? The funding formula school prevent that outcome for primary and secondary schools, if not for special schools. However, as I asked in the previous post in this series, is it the fact that funding includes a London allowance important, as the extra cash may go further if London schools employ younger, and thus cheaper teachers than in some other parts of England.

Do London schools use their cash for more classroom assistants and other staff likely to help reduce the level of suspensions and exclusions?

The data is intriguing, and worthy of more analysis than I have time to undertake. Are there also lesson to be learnt from London schools about how to reduce the number of pupils ‘kicked out’ of schools?

Finally, do academies or maintained schools exclude or suspend more pupils in different groups of pupils? What role, if any, do local authorities still play in helping keep down the levels of suspensions and exclusions? Time for me to go search the research literature.

Are London schools overfunded?

Posted on July 13, 2026 by John Howson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do better funded schools exclude fewer pupils? Part 2

Posted on July 11, 2026 by John Howson

Earlier this week the DfE published the 2024-25 school-year data about temporary suspensions and permanent exclusions by schools. Release home – Suspensions and permanent exclusions in England – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK

The good news is contained in the headlines:

The rate of suspensions in the 2024/25 academic year was 10.88 (equivalent to 1,088 suspensions for every 10,000 pupils). This is a decrease from 11.31 in 2023/24. There were 913,000 suspensions in 2024/25, a decrease of 4% from 955,000 in 2023/24.

The rate and number of permanent exclusions also decreased from 2023/24 to 2024/25

The rate of permanent exclusions in the 2024/25 academic year was 0.12 (equivalent to 12 permanent exclusions for every 10,000 pupils). This is a decrease from 0.13 in 2023/24. There were 9,900 permanent exclusions in 2024/25, a decrease of 9% from 10,900 in 2023/24.

As the data are per 10,000 pupils, the outcomes are not affected by falling pupil rolls. However, since falling pupil numbers have yet really impacted on the secondary school sector, where most pupils are excluded or suspended, I wouldn’t have expected falling rolls to have had an impact in 2024-25.

A more interesting questions is whether funding for schools plays any part in the ability of schools to retain pupils rather than suspend or exclude them. Answering this question is slightly more complex than it might be because not all schools may behave in the same manner. for instance, Oxfordshire, a county I know well, has a higher rate of temporary suspensions, where it ranked 83 worst out of 154 local authorities in the 2024-25 data, compared with a ranking of 11^th best of the 154 authorities for permanent exclusions.

However, as I have shown before, London schools are well funded compared with schools outside the capital. Thus, without a deliberate local policy to try to reduce either exclusion and suspensions, or indeed both, by schools outside the capital, it might be expected that London local authorities might rank as authorities with the lowest percentages of exclusions and suspensions.

The data for the rankings of London authorities in both 2023-24 and 2024-25 are shown in the table.

NUMBER OF LONDON BOROUGHS IN THE TOP 35 RANKED LOCAL AUTHORITIES
SCHOOL YEAR PERM EXCLUSIONS TEMP SUSPENSIONS
202324 19 27
202425 16 28

The figures for both years are impressive, with 28 of the London boroughs in the top 35 local authorities for the lowest temporary suspension per 10,000 pupils. However, this is not a new trend. In a previous post last year, I wrote the following:

As ever, I am struck by the funding issue. London, the best funded part of England has some of the lowest rates for exclusion and suspensions. There are 17 London boroughs in the list of the 25 local authorities with the lowest rate of suspensions in 2023/24, and 19 in the similar list for secondary exclusions. In the list of ten local authorities with the highest rates of exclusion are five authorities in the North East. I think that there may be something in this data that needs further exploration, especially as I would expect teacher recruitment to be easier in the North East than in London. Do better funded schools exclude fewer pupils? | John Howson

Once again, in the latest data, local authorities in the north East fare badly, with five in the ten lowest rankings for permanent exclusions, and six in the ten lowest rankings for temporary suspensions.

Many London schools also have the benefit of Teach First in addition to their DfE funding. Even though they have to pay towards the Teach First trainees, the extra support is possibly another reason why London schools perform so well on this measure.

I wonder whether this issue is a concern to our incoming Prime Minister in view of the rankings for some local authorities in the north West of England.

Why aren’t all trainee teachers paid?

Posted on July 10, 2026 by John Howson

My recent post about tuition fees and student loans Pay tuition fees of trainee teachers | John Howson reminded me that it is some years since I compared how trainee teachers were treated in comparison with another group of public servants undergoing training.

British Army officer training at Sandhurst is a 42-week course, slightly longer than the face-to-face component of a PGCE, but I expect that there are few PGCE students that don’t also work during their ‘holidays’, as, indeed, do most teachers.

The key difference, between a PGCE and Sandhurst, apart for the 24 hour seven days a week residential element to army training, is that all officer cadets receive the equivalent of £35,925 per year. I am not sure if this also contains possible pension contributions as well.

Even those PGCE students with bursaries cannot match that figure. The most generous bursaries according to the government website are £29,000 or £31,000 if a trainee is awarded a scholarship. Teacher training bursaries | Get Into Teaching GOV.UK Of course, unlike a salary, these should be tax free during training.

Bursaries are not available to all trainee teachers, only those that the DfE regards as training to be a teacher in a shortage subject. This blog has regularly commented on the somewhat arbitrary and haphazard nature of such designations, including the removal of a bursary for music in September 2026. By contrast, all officer cadets at Sandhurst are paid, regardless of the corps or arm they will eventually join, and whether there are sufficient trainees to staff all required roles.

By comparison, a graduate joining the civil service ‘Fast Stream’ scheme would earn £31,554 per annum, plus a pension and guarantee of employment, something also offered to successful Sandhurst graduates. Fast Stream | Civil Service Careers

I have to say that I think the civil service salary is not very generous, especially for working in central London, but it can increase substantially by year two, so perhaps, it might be seen as a training salary.

Of course, some trainee teachers can earn a salary. Teach First, with its salary, is similar to the civil service Fast Track in blending training and actual ‘real work’. Fast Track currently pays between £23-31,000 for trainees outside London, and up to 333,500 for trainees in London in their first year. Join our leading two-year, fully-funded teacher Training Programme | Teach First So, similar salary to officer cadets at Sandhurst for London trainees on Fast track, but considerably less for those on the Fast Track route outside of London.

With falling rolls, and better retention rates, the question for the Labour government is whether or not graduate teacher training should be brought into line with other public sector professions, with all trainees receiving a salary plus the guarantee of a teaching post? The latter might be a step too far, but if the government insists on setting training targets trough the Teacher Supply Model, then it should be expected to offer all trainees a teaching post.

Employing trainee teachers, would stop over-recruitment that is costing the government money through paying out student loans, for instance, to the 26% of primary trainees recruited above target last year.

A universal salary scheme for graduate trainee teachers would break the historical bond between trainees and higher education, established when the employer’s training colleges were forced into the higher education sector in the 1970s, following the Robbins Report. Of course, universities could compete to provide the courses for the government alongside other training providers. As they already do for school-based courses.

The present arrangements for graduate teacher training are no longer fit for purpose. The outgoing Prime Minister had little to say about teachers when preparing for government, other than a ‘retention bonus’. Labour’s style over substance | John Howson

I hope that the next Prime Minister, will consider the importance of the teaching workforce in achieving his goals for society. If so, looking at how we train teachers might be a place to start.