Research and analysis

School and college voice: December 2023

Published 27 September 2024

Applies to England

Introduction

The Department for Education (DfE) commissioned Verian (formerly known as Kantar Public) to recruit and maintain a panel of school and college leaders and teachers in England, known as the school and college voice (SCV). The SCV is designed to collect robust evidence to help the Department for Education understand the perspectives of teachers and leaders. This allows us to make more effective policy.

The SCV works as a series of short surveys across the academic year, covering a range of new and longstanding policy issues. This report is about the findings from the December 2023 survey wave of the school and college voice.

Methodology

The school and college voice survey is answered by teachers and leaders who have agreed to participate in short, regular research surveys on topical education issues.

We select teachers and leaders randomly using records from the school workforce census and invite them to take part in an online survey. For the first survey of the academic year we send invitation letters and emails to teachers and leaders. For other surveys in that same academic year, the invitation is sent by email and text message to the teachers and leaders who agreed to join the panel in the first survey.

We conducted the survey between 5 December 2023 and 29 January 2024. The respondents were:

• 1663 primary school teachers
• 1326 secondary school teachers
• 625 special school teachers
• 838 primary school leaders
• 609 secondary school leaders
• 343 special school leaders

For some topics, we split leaders into 2 panels (panel A and panel B). This allowed us to cover more topics without increasing the number of questions we asked to each leader. We assigned half of the leaders from each phase to each panel.

The topics included in the survey are related to a variety of policy areas that teams in DfE are working on. Policy teams submit questions for inclusion in the survey, and use the results to help inform policy development in the areas they work on. This report summarises findings for each topic covered.

Unless otherwise stated, when we refer to the ‘average’, we are reporting the arithmetic mean. Complete findings can be found in the published data tables, which include more detail on how different groups answered each question.

The report makes some comparisons to previous surveys conducted in previous academic years, for example the school and college panel omnibus surveys for 2022 to 2023. These comparisons are helpful to understand how trends may be changing. However, the survey methodology changes over time and so comparisons to previous years are not as reliable as survey findings within each academic year.

Further information on the survey methodology is available in the school and college voice technical report: 2023 to 2024 academic report.

Banding for percentages

We use a consistent banding system for describing percentages, as follows:

• Very few - 0% to 10%
• A small minority - 11% to 32%
• A minority - 33% to 47%
• About half - 48% to 52%
• A majority - 53% to 66%
• A large majority - 67% to 89%
• Almost all - 90% to 100%

We do not describe 0% and 100% as ‘none’ and ‘all’ because figure rounding may mean this is not accurate. For instance, 100% may be 99.6% of respondents, rounded to the nearest whole number.

Topics covered in this survey

The survey included questions about:

• policies on the use of mobile phones in schools
• timetabling of physical education (PE) lessons
• provision and uptake of the English Baccalaureate
• approaches to collective worship and religious education (RE)
• support for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND)
• use of the National Tutoring Programme (NTP)
• priorities for pupil premium spending
• safeguarding incidents involving knife crime
• engagement with teaching school hubs (TSHs)
• behaviour in school
• teacher and leader wellbeing and satisfaction

Mobile phones in schools

We asked school leaders about their school’s policy regarding the use of mobile phones (Figures 1, 2 and 3). Across all phases, there were no leaders that said pupils can use their phone anytime at school.

A large majority of primary school leaders (72%) said that pupils can bring their phone to school, but must hand it in or leave it in a secure place. A small minority (20%) said that pupils cannot bring their phone to school.

Secondary school leaders typically reported more permissive policies than primary school leaders. The majority of secondary school leaders (66%) said that pupils can bring their phone to school but cannot use it. A small minority (13%) said that pupils can use their phone in lessons with permission.

About half of special school leaders (51%) said that pupils can bring their phone to school but must hand it in or leave it in a secure place. A small minority said that pupils can bring their phone to school but cannot use it (13%), that pupils cannot bring their phone to school (13%), or that they have a different policy on phone usage (14%).

PE timetabling

We asked primary and secondary school leaders how many minutes of compulsory PE teaching were timetabled for pupils in the autumn term (Figure 4).

The median number of timetabled minutes of compulsory PE teaching was:

• 120 for KS1
• 120 for KS2
• 120 for KS3
• 60 for KS4

We present the median here due to a outliers in responses that are likely errors (for example, 2 minutes or 1200 minutes of PE per week).

English Baccalaureate (EBacc) policy in schools

The majority of secondary school leaders (58%) said that some or all pupils at their school are required to take the English Baccaleareate when selecting their GCSE options.

We asked leaders who said that some or all pupils are required to take the EBacc which pupils are required to take it (Figure 5).

Leaders most commonly said that all pupils are required to take the EBacc, except in exceptional cases (42%). A small minority said that all high-achieving and middle-achieving pupils (29%) or all high-achieving pupils (11%) are required to take the EBacc.

Almost all leaders whose school did not require pupils to take the EBacc (92%) said that lesson timetabling allows pupils to take the EBacc if they want to.

Collective worship and RE

We asked leaders whether their school ever conducts collective worship. We defined collective worship as activities such as singing religious songs, prayers or religious stories in assemblies. As the guidance around collective worship is non-statutory in special schools, we have not presented results for special school leaders in this report.

A large majority of primary school leaders (86%) said their school conducts collective worship. A minority of secondary school leaders (38%) said that their school conducts collective workshop.

We asked leaders whose school conducts collective worship how often their school does so (Figure 6).

About half of primary school leaders (50%) said that their school conducts collective worship at least once a day. A small minority (29%) said that their school conducts collective worship at least once a week.

Secondary leaders most commonly said that their school conducts collective worship at least once per day (38%). A small minority said that their school conducts collective worship at least once per week (16%), at least once per half-term (14%) or at least once per academic year (18%).

The right to withdraw from collective worship and RE

Almost all (92%) school leaders said they were aware that parents have the right to withdraw their child from collective worship. A minority of leaders (34%) said that their school publicises this right to parents, although about a quarter (25%) did not know whether it was publicised.

Similarly, almost all (92%) school leaders said they were aware that parents have the right to withdraw their child from RE lessons. A minority of leaders (45%) said that their school publicises this right to parents, although about a quarter (23%) did not knew whether it was publicised.

Supporting pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND)

A large majority of primary and secondary school leaders (79%) agreed or strongly agreed that their school can effectively support pupils with SEND, while a small minority (12%) disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Almost all special school leaders (99%) agreed or strongly agreed that their school can effectively support pupils with SEND, with 95% strongly agreeing.

Teacher confidence in supporting pupils with SEND

A large majority of primary and secondary school teachers (83%) and almost all special school teachers (98%) strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that they have sufficient skills and knowledge to support pupils with SEND.

Similarly, a large majority of primary and secondary school teachers (83%) and almost all special school teachers (99%) said they were very or fairly confident in meeting the needs of pupils requiring support for SEND.

We asked teachers what could improve their confidence in supporting pupils with SEND (Figure 7).

Primary school teachers most commonly said more external specialist support (66%), more training on SEND (49%), or more internal specialist support (34%) would help improve their confidence in supporting pupils with SEND.

Secondary school teachers also most commonly said more external specialist support (41%), more training on SEND (40%), or more internal specialist support (40%) would help improve their confidence.

Special school teachers most commonly said more external specialist support (52%) and more training on SEND (33%) would help improve their confidence, as would more support from senior leaders of governors (21%).

We asked teachers which resources they use to support pupils with SEND (Figure 8).

Primary school teachers most commonly selected advice from the special educational needs co-ordinator (SENCO) (89%), speaking to teaching colleagues (77%), and internal training courses delivered by their school (75%).

Similarly, secondary school teachers most commonly selected advice from the SENCO (84%), internal training courses delivered by their school (81%) and speaking to teaching colleagues (76%).

Special school teachers most commonly selected internal training courses delivered by their school (85%), speaking to teaching colleagues (81%), and speaking to other specialists (75%).

A small minority of secondary school teachers (14%) said they speak to other specialists (such as educational psychologists and speech therapists), compared with the majority of primary school teachers (59%) and a large majority of special school teachers (75%).

Barriers to supporting pupils with SEND

We asked leaders which barriers, if any, their school experiences in meeting the needs of pupils with SEND (Figure 9).

The most common barrier across all phases was a lack of funding, with almost all primary school leaders (93%), a large majority of secondary school leaders (82%), and the majority of special school leaders (68%) selecting this option.

The second most common barrier across all phases was a lack of access to external specialist services or professionals, with a large majority of primary school leaders (79%), secondary school leaders (79%) and special school leaders (59%) selecting this option.

A large majority of primary school leaders (75%) and secondary school leaders (66%) said that staff supporting a large number of pupils with differing needs was a barrier.

Special school leaders reported every barrier to meeting the needs of pupils with SEND less commonly than mainstream leaders. They also more commonly said there were currently no barriers to meeting the needs of pupils with SEND (12%), compared both primary and secondary school leaders (1%).

We also asked teachers if they experience any barriers to effectively providing support for pupils with SEND (Figure 10).

A large majority of primary school teachers (79%) and secondary school teachers (70%), and the majority of special school teachers (65%) said that lack of staff (e.g., teaching assistants) is a barrier to effectively providing support for pupils with SEND.

A large majority of secondary school teachers (68%) and the majority of primary school (62%) and special school teachers (54%) said that lack of time is a barrier.

The majority of secondary school teachers (60%) said that class sizes being too big is a barrier to supporting pupils with SEND, although this was less commonly reported by primary school (38%) and special school teachers (30%).

As with leaders, special school teachers reported all barriers less frequently than mainstream teachers and more commonly said there were no current barriers (11%), compared to primary teachers (4%) and secondary teachers (5%).

Access to specialist SEND support

We asked teachers which external specialist services they had required support from when teaching or working with pupils with SEND since September 2023 (Figure 11).

Among primary teachers, the most commonly required services were a speech and language therapist (60%), an educational psychologist (52%), or local authority education services (35%).

About half of secondary teachers (48%) said they did not require support from any external services, and about a quarter (23%) did not know. The most common support required among those who were able to say which services they needed were mental health services (22%) or support from an educational psychologist (17%).

Special school teachers most commonly required support from a speech and language therapist (78%), an occupational therapist (62%) or social services (50%). A larger proportion of special school teachers required support from each specialist service than was the case for other teachers. Support from an educational psychologist was the exception, with a minority of special school teachers (40%) needing this type of support.

We asked teachers who said they had required support from any external specialist if they had received the support they needed for teaching pupils with SEND since September 2023 (Figure 12). We asked respondents about a maximum of 3 services in order to limit the length of the survey.

A minority of special school teachers (44%) were able to access external support they needed all or most of the time. Only a small minority of primary school teachers (24%) and secondary school teachers (19%) were able to access the external support they needed always or most of the time.

We also asked teachers which specialist services within their school they had required support from when teaching or working with pupils with SEND since September 2023 (Figure 13).

A large majority of primary school teachers said they required support from the SENCO (86%) and from teaching assistants (79%). About half (49%) said they required support from the safeguarding leads.

A large majority of secondary school teachers said they required support from the SENCO (69%) and from teaching assistants (70%). A minority (46%) said they required support from the safeguarding leads.

A large majority of special school teachers said they required support from teaching assistants (85%) and the safeguarding leads (73%). About half (52%) said they required support from other internal support staff.

We asked teachers who said they had required support from any external specialist if they had received the support they needed for teaching pupils with SEND (Figure 14). We asked respondents about a maximum of 3 services in order to limit the length of the survey.

Teachers in all phases were more easily able to access internal support than external support.

The majority of primary school teachers (69%) and secondary school teachers (62%) were able to access the support they required always or most of the time. A large majority of special school teachers (80%) were able to access support always or most of the time.

National Tutoring Programme

We asked primary and secondary school leaders which NTP routes their school was using, or planning to use, this academic year (Figure 15).

School-led tutoring was the most common NTP route, with a majority of both primary school (53%) and secondary school leaders (54%) saying their school was using or planning to use the route this academic year.

Very few primary school leaders said that their school was using or planning to use academic mentors (7%) or tuition partners (6%). These routes were more commonly reported by secondary school leaders, with about three in ten using or planning to use academic mentors (29%) or tuition partners (30%).

A small minority of leaders (26%) said that their school was not planning on delivering tutoring through any NTP routes this academic year. We asked them why this was (Figure 16).

Being unable to meet the 50% funding requirement was the most common response given by both primary school (69%) and secondary school leaders (52%) who said they are not planning to deliver tutoring through any NTP routes this academic year.

A small minority of primary schools leaders said they do not have the administrative capacity (20%) or they do not think the programme will improve pupil outcomes (12%).

A minority of secondary school leaders (40%) said they did not think the programme would improve pupil outcomes. A small minority said they were unable to find any suitable tutors via any of the available NTP routes (27%) or they do not have the administrative capacity (26%).

Pupil premium spending

We asked school leaders what their school’s top three key priorities are for pupil premium spending this academic year (Figure 17).

The most commonly selected priorities for primary school leaders were supporting pupils’ social, emotional and behavioural needs (74%), targeted academic support, including tutoring (67%), and extra-curricular activities (44%).

The most commonly selected priorities for secondary school leaders were improving pupils’ attendance (65%), targeted academic support, including tutoring (60%), and supporting pupils’ social, emotional and behavioural needs (54%).

Knife crime as a safeguarding issue

We asked school leaders whether their school was actively dealing with knife crime as a safeguarding issue at the time of completing the survey (Figure 18). We defined this the school having taken action, however small, as a result of recognising a safeguarding risk to a pupil in relation to knife crime.

Very few (9%) primary school leaders said their school was actively dealing with knife crime as a safeguarding issue, while a minority of secondary school leaders (42%) were doing so. A small minority of special school leaders (18%) said their school was actively dealing with knife crime as a safeguarding issue.

These results were similar to the April 2023, when we last asked this question, when 9% of primary school teachers and 43% of secondary school teachers said their school was actively dealing with knife crime as a safeguarding issue.

We asked leaders who said they were actively dealing with knife crime as a safeguarding issue how many individual incidents their school was actively dealing with. Most leaders either did not know (39%) or preferred not to say (20%). Among those who provided a number, the average number of incidents was 2.8 per 1000 pupils.

Teaching school hubs (TSHs)

We asked school teachers and leaders whether they had heard of teaching school hubs (Figure 19).

Almost all leaders (95%) had heard of TSHs, as had the majority of teachers (64%).

A minority (39%) of teachers knew a lot or a little about TSHs, compared to a large majority of leaders (80%).

We asked teachers who were aware of TSHs which programmes they had personally accessed at their school since September 2022. We also asked leaders who were aware of TSHs which programmes staff had accessed at their school since September 2022 (Figure 20).

Teachers had most commonly accessed national professional qualifications (31%), Early Careers Framework (24%) and other continuous professional development (CPD) programmes (43%).

Leaders also reported that staff had accessed the same programmes most commonly at their school. A large majority said that staff had accessed National Professional Qualifications (73%) and Early Careers Framework (72%), while about half said that staff had accessed other CPD programmes (47%).

Among teachers who had not accessed a TSH programme, the most common reasons were not having enough time (23%) and the programmes not being relevant to them (23%).

We also asked leaders who reported that no TSH programmes were accessed at their school why they had not accessed a TSH programme. This applied to few leaders (68 total) and so the results may not be as reliable. Leaders most commonly said they had accessed the programmes through other providers (43%).

Behaviour

We asked teachers how they would rate the behaviour of pupils in their school over the past week of term (Figure 21).

A large majority of primary school teachers (80%) said behaviour of pupils at their school had been either good or very good, as did the majority of secondary teachers (58%) and special school teachers (60%).

Very few primary school teachers (8%) said behaviour had been poor or very poor, while a small minority of secondary school teachers (22%) and special school teachers (14%) said behaviour had been poor or very poor.

We also asked teachers how they would rate the behaviour of pupils in their school over the past week of term (Figure 22).

Leaders typically gave more positive ratings of behaviour than teachers. Almost all primary school leaders (95%) said the behaviour of pupils at their school had been either good or very good, while a large majority of secondary school (82%) and special school leaders (84%) said the same.

Frequency of positive behaviours

We asked teachers how often certain positive behaviours had occurred over the past week of term (Figure 23).

Almost all teachers said that staff had been respectful to each other every day or most days (95%) and that their school had been a safe environment for pupils every day or most days (93%). A large majority said that pupils had been respectful to each other every day or most days (79%) and that their school had been calm and orderly every day or most days (71%).

Primary school teachers were more likely to report all of the positive behaviours happening every day or most days compared with secondary school teachers and special school teachers.

For each positive behaviour, a larger proportion of teachers said these happened every day or most days compared with March 2023, when we last asked these questions.

We also asked leaders how often these positive behaviours had occurred over the past week of term (Figure 24).

Almost all leaders said that each positive behaviour we asked about had happened everyday or most days. These results are similar to March 2023.

Leaders were more likely to report all of these behaviours happening every day or most days, compared with teachers.

Interruptions to learning due to misbehaviour

We asked teachers and leaders how frequently pupil misbehaviour had interrupted the lessons they taught in the past week (Figure 25).

Teachers most commonly said that interruptions had happened in some lessons (40%), while the most common answer for leaders was that interruptions had rarely happened (42%).

A small minority of teachers (27%) said that pupil misbehaviour had interrupted every lesson or most lessons in the past week, while very few leaders (7%) said this.

We then asked teachers and leaders how many minutes of learning, on average, were lost due to misbehaviour per 30 minutes of teaching in the past week of term (Figure 26).

The majority of teachers (59%) and leaders (57%) said that they had lost between 1 and 5 minutes of teaching due to pupil misbehaviour, per 30 minutes.

On average, leaders reported that 4 minutes had been lost due to misbehaviour for every 30 minutes of lesson time. This was slightly higher than in March 2023, when leaders reported that 3 minutes had been lost for every 30 minutes of lesson time.

On average, teachers reported that 6 minutes had been lost due to misbehaviour for every 30 minutes of lesson time. This was slightly lower than in May 2023, when teachers reported that 7 minutes had been lost for every 30 minutes of lesson time.

Effect of misbehaviour on teacher and leader wellbeing

We asked teachers and leaders whether pupil misbehaviour had had a negative impact on their health and wellbeing over the past week of term (Figure 27).

Very few teachers (7%) or leaders (3%) said that pupil misbehaviour had negatively affected their wellbeing ‘to a great extent’.

The majority of teachers (60%) said that pupil misbehaviour had negatively affected their wellbeing ‘to a small extent’ or ‘to some extent’. A minority of leaders (43%) said the same.

A minority of leaders (28%) and small minority of teachers (46%) said that pupil misbehaviour had not negatively affected their wellbeing at all.

Teacher and leader confidence in managing misbehaviour

Almost all leaders (99%) said they felt very or fairly confident managing pupil misbehaviour in their school. Similarly, almost all teachers (95%) said they felt very or fairly confident managing pupil misbehaviour in their school.

No leaders and less than 1% of teachers said they felt ‘not at all confident’ managing pupil misbehaviour.

Teacher and leader wellbeing

We asked teachers and leaders a series of ONS-validated questions about personal wellbeing. These questions are known as the ‘ONS-4’ measures and are answered using a scale from 0 to 10.

Teacher and leader happiness

We asked teachers and leaders (on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being happiest) how happy they felt yesterday (Figure 28).

The average happiness score was 6.8 for teachers and 7.1 for leaders.

Both teacher and leader average happiness were higher than in April 2023, the last time we asked this question, when average teacher happiness was 6.3 and average leader happiness was 6.3.

Teacher and leader satisfaction with life

We asked teachers and leaders (on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being the most satisfied) how satisfied they are with their life nowadays (Figure 29).

The average life satisfaction score was 7.1 for teachers and 7.4 for leaders.

Both teacher and leader average life satisfaction were higher than in April 2023, the last time we asked this question, when average teacher happiness was 6.0 and average leader happiness was 6.1.

Extent to which teacher and leaders feel the things they do are worthwhile

We asked teachers and leaders (on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being the most worthwhile) to what extent they feel that the things they do in their life are worthwhile (Figure 30).

The average score among teachers for feeling that the things they do in their life are worthwhile was 7.7 for teachers and 8.2 for leaders.

Both teacher and leader average feeling that their life is worthwhile was higher than in April 2023, the last time we asked this question, when average teacher happiness was 6.7.0 and average leader happiness was 7.1.

Teacher and leader anxiousness

We asked teachers and leaders (on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being the most anxious) how anxious they felt yesterday, with 0 being ‘not at all anxious’ and 10 being ‘completely anxious’ (Figure 31).

The average anxiousness score was 4.4 for teachers and 3.7 for leaders.

Both teacher and leader average anxiousness had decreased from April 2023, the last time we asked this question, when average teacher happiness was 4.8.0 and average leader happiness was 4.8.

Teacher and leader job satisfaction

Finally, we asked teachers and leaders how satisfied they are with their present job overall (Figure 32).

A large majority of both teachers (68%) and leaders (76%) said they were somewhat satisfied, mostly satisfied or completely satisfied with their job.

A small minority of both teachers (26%) and leaders (19%) said they were somewhat dissatisfied, mostly dissatisfied or completely dissatisfied with their job.

The proportion of teachers and leaders saying they were overall satisfied with their job increased since January 2023, when the proportion of leaders saying they were satisfied was 60% and the proportion of teachers saying they were satisfied was 48%.

Glossary

National Tutoring Programme (NTP): a scheme that supports schools to access additional targeted support for those children who have been hardest hit by disruption to their education as a result of the pandemic. Schools can spend the funding on any of the following tuition routes:

• academic mentors: employed to work as full-time, in-house staff members to provide intensive support to pupils who need it
• tuition partners: external tutoring organisations, quality assured by DfE
• school-led tutoring: offering flexibility for schools to use their own staff to provide tutoring, which may involve personnel they currently employ, or staff newly engaged for this purpose (which could include retired teachers, supply teachers, support staff or others)

Special educational needs co-ordinator (SENCO): a qualified teacher who leads and co-ordinates a school’s provision for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. The provision of a SENCO is mandatory in mainstream schools, while it is optional in special schools.

Special educational needs and disability (SEND): a child or young person has SEND if they have a learning difficulty or disability which calls for special educational provision to be made for them. A child of compulsory school age or a young person has a learning difficulty or disability if they:

• have a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of others of the same age
• have a disability which prevents or hinders them from making use of facilities of a kind generally provided for others of the same age in mainstream schools or mainstream post-16 institutions

Many children and young people who have SEND may also have a disability under the Equality Act 2010 – that is ‘a physical or mental impairment which has a long-term and substantial adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities’. Where a disabled child or young person requires special educational provision, they will also be covered by the SEND definition.

Special schools: schools which provide an education for children with SEND. Almost all pupils in special schools have an education, health and care plan (EHCP).