Research and analysis

School and college voice: February 2024

Published 27 September 2024

Applies to England

1. 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 February 2024 survey wave of the School and College Voice.

This research report was written before the new UK government took office on 5 July 2024. As a result, the content may not reflect current government policy.

2. Methodology

The SCV 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 (SWFC) 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, we send the invitation 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 28 February and 11 March 2024. The respondents were:

• 811 primary school teachers
• 669 secondary school teachers
• 316 special school teachers
• 319 primary school leaders
• 243 secondary school leaders
• 139 special school leaders

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. We introduced special school teachers and leaders to the SCV in the 2023/24 academic year, so any comparisons from previous academic years do not include these audiences.

Further information on the survey methodology is available in the accompanying technical report:

Download the ‘School and College Voice Technical Report 2023 to 2024’ (PDF, SIZE KB)

2.1 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%
• The 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.

2.2 Topics covered in this survey

The survey included questions about:

• teacher recruitment
• qualification awareness and encouragement
• artificial intelligence in schools
• delayed admission for summer born pupils
• awareness of Senior Mental Health Lead grants
• the National Tutoring Programme
• supporting pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND)
• awareness of National Professional Qualifications
• wraparound childcare provision

3. Teacher recruitment and retention

We asked secondary school leaders which subjects their school had found it difficult to recruit teachers for this academic year (Figure 1).

The subjects that secondary school leaders most commonly reported finding it difficult to recruit for were physics (52%), mathematics (52%) and chemistry (43%).

Very few leaders (3%) said they did not have difficulties recruiting teachers in any of the subjects we asked about.

We asked secondary leaders whose school found it difficult to recruit teachers for any subject(s) how their school had responded to these recruitment difficulties this academic year (Figure 2).

A large majority said they had re-advertised vacancies (88%) to respond to recruitment difficulties. The majority also said they had used supply teachers (66%) or non-specialist teachers (59%).

We also asked special school leaders how difficult it has been for their school to recruit and retain teachers this academic year (Figure 3).

A large majority of special school leaders (80%) said it had been quite difficult or very difficult to recruit teachers, while a minority (34%) said it had been quite difficult or very difficult to retain teachers.

4. Qualification awareness and encouragement

We asked teachers and leaders what proportion of pupils they teach they would encourage to consider a range of qualifications (Figure 4).

Almost all secondary school leaders said they would encourage at least some pupils to take an apprenticeship (98%), an undergraduate degree (98%) or a degree apprenticeship (91%). A large majority said they would encourage pupils to take a traineeship (87%) or a level 4 or qualification (79%), while the majority (57%) said they would encourage pupils to take an Higher Technical Qualification (HTQ).

Almost all secondary school teachers said they would encourage at least some pupils to take an apprenticeship (96%) or an undergraduate degree (96%). A large majority said they would encourage pupils to take a degree apprenticeship (81%) or a traineeship (80%). The majority said they would encourage pupils to take a level 4 or qualification (64%), while a minority (42%) said they would encourage pupils to take an Higher Technical Qualification (HTQ).

Teachers and leaders in special schools were less likely than those in secondary schools to encourage the pupils they teach to undertake any of the qualifications we asked about (Figure 5).

The majority of special school leaders (56%) said they would encourage at least some pupils to undertake an apprenticeship, while a minority (47%) said they would encourage pupils to take a traineeship. A small minority said they would encourage pupils to take an HTQ (13%) or a level 4 or 5 qualification (11%), while very few said they would encourage pupils to take an undergraduate degree (7%) or a degree apprenticeship (7%).

The majority of special school teachers (58%) said they would encourage at least some pupils to undertake an apprenticeship, while about half (48%) said they would encourage pupils to take a traineeship. A small minority said they would encourage pupils to take a level 4 or 5 qualification (17%), an HTQ (14%), or a degree apprenticeship (13%), while very few said they would encourage pupils to take an undergraduate degree (8%).

4.1 Awareness of Higher Technical Qualifications

We asked secondary and special school teachers and leaders how much they knew about HTQs (Figure 6).

A large majority of leaders (72%) and a majority of teachers (56%) said they had heard of HTQs. However, very few teachers (2%) or leaders (3%) said they knew a lot about them.

5. Artificial intelligence in schools

Very few primary school leaders (3%) said that pupils are allowed to use generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools in work they have set, while a small minority of secondary school (14%) and special school leaders (10%) said pupils are allowed to use them.

Similarly, very few primary (3%), secondary (8%) or special school teachers (6%) said that pupils are allowed to use generative AI tools in work they have set.

5.1 Teacher and leader use of generative AI

A minority of teachers (35%) and leaders (36%) said they have used generative AI tools in their role with a further 24% of teachers and 27% leaders said they planned to use AI tools but had not done so yet.

The proportion of teachers and leaders who had used generative AI in their role is higher than when we last asked this question in April 2023, when 12% of teachers and 11% of leaders reported they had used AI in their role.

We asked teachers and leaders who had used generative AI tools in their role which tasks they had used them for (Figure 7).

Teachers most commonly reported using AI tools to create lesson and curriculum resources for pupils to use (26%) or to support with planning lessons and curriculum content (16%).

Leaders most commonly reported using AI tools to create lesson and curriculum resources for pupils to use (18%) or to support with communicating and engaging with parents/carers (18%).

We asked teachers and leaders who had not used generative AI tools in their role why this was (Figure 8).

The majority of teachers (61%) and leaders (66%) who had never used generative AI tools said this was because they did not know enough about how these tools could be used in their role.

A minority of teachers (34%) and leaders (34%) also said they were concerned about the risks of using AI tools.

5.2 Changes in schools to account for generative AI

We asked leaders if they are considering any changes within school to account for AI tools and technology (Figure 9).

Very few primary school leaders (2%) said they had already made changes within school to account for generative AI tools, while a minority (34%) were either planning or were in the process of reviewing and making changes. About half (52%) said they had no plans to consider the issue.

Similarly, very few special school leaders (0%) said they had already made changes within school to account for AI tools, while a minority (37%) were either planning or were in the process of reviewing and making changes. The majority (54%) said they had no plans to consider the issue.

In contrast, while very few secondary school leaders (10%) said they had already made changes, the majority (61%) said they were either planning or were in the process of reviewing and making changes. A small minority (17%) said they had no plans to consider the issue.

6. Delayed admission for summer born pupils

We asked primary school leaders if, in the last 3 academic years, their school had received any requests from parents for delayed admission to reception for summer born pupils.

Around half of primary school leaders (51%) said their school had received a request, while a small minority said their school had not received a request (30%) or did not know (14%). Among those whose school had received a request, the median number of requests over the past 3 academic years was 2.

We also asked primary school leaders how requests for delayed admission to reception for summer born children are decided in their school. The most common response (47%) was that the school decides whether to approve the request. A small minority (19%) said their school defers the decision to the local authority, and 27% did not know how their school handles requests.

Among primary school leaders who said their school decides on requests for delayed admission to reception for summer born children, a large majority (89%) make decisions on a case-by-case basis. Very few leaders said their school agrees all requests (5%) or does not agree any requests (2%).

6.1 Delayed admission to Year 7

We asked secondary school leaders if, in the last 3 academic years, their school had received requests for delayed admission to year 7 for summer born pupils who were educated out-of-year group at primary school.

The most common response (45%) was that secondary leaders did not know whether their school had received any requests. A small minority (12%) said their school had received requests, while 40% said their school had not. Among those whose school had received a request, the median number of requests over the past 3 academic years was 2.

The majority of leaders (56%) did not know how their school decides on requests for delayed admission to year 7 for summer born children. A small minority said the school decides whether to approve the request (28%) or that they defer the decision to the local authority (13%).

Among secondary school leaders who said that their school decides on requests for delayed admission, a large majority (72%) ask parents to make a case for delayed admission and make decisions on a case-by-case basis. Only 69 leaders answered this question, so results should be treated with caution.

7. Awareness of Senior Mental Health Lead grants

A large majority of leaders (73%) said they were aware of the DfE training grant for senior mental health leads. Awareness was lower compared to January 2023, when 82% of leaders said they were aware of the grant.

Of the leaders who said they were aware the grant, a large majority (72%) said their school had applied for it, while a further 7% said they intended to apply for it soon. The proportion of leaders who said they had applied for the training grant was similar to January 2023 (71%), when we last asked this question.

We asked the school leaders who had not applied for the DfE training grant for senior mental health leads why they had not done so. The most common reasons were that they did not have staff availability or capacity for the role (30%), that the school had been too busy with other things (25%), and that there was a different reason not covered in the survey options (33%). These were also the most common reasons given in January 2023. This question was answered by 57 leaders, so results should be treated with caution.

8. National Tutoring Programme

We asked primary, secondary and special school leaders which National Tutoring Programme (NTP) routes their school was using, or planning to use, this academic year (Figure 10).

School-led tutoring was the most common NTP route being used, or planning to be used, this academic year. The majority of primary (53%) and secondary school leaders (57%) said they were using this route, while 38% of special school leaders said they were using it.

A small minority of secondary school leaders said they were using or planning to use academic mentors (25%) or tuition partners (31%), while primary school and special school leaders selected these routes less often.

A minority of primary (38%) and special school leaders (41%) said they were not using or planning to use any NTP routes this academic year, while a small minority of secondary school leaders (16%) said the same.

We asked school leaders how likely their school is to offer some form of academic tutoring after this academic year, if dedicated funding is not available (Figure 11).

The majority of primary (58%) and special school leaders (59%) said they were not very likely or not at all likely to offer academic tutoring if dedicated funding is not available, while about half of secondary school leaders (49%) said the same.

A minority of primary (34%) and secondary leaders (42%) said they were likely to offer academic tutoring, while a small minority of special leaders (28%) said the same.

We asked all leaders what guidance or support their school would need to deliver tutoring if dedicated funding is not available. About half of leaders (52%) said their school would not need guidance or support. A small minority of leaders said their school would need guidance on tutoring best practice (14%) or another form of guidance or support not covered in the survey options (13%).

9. Supporting pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND)

9.1 Access to external specialist support for pupils with SEND

We asked teachers which external specialist services they had required support from when teaching or working with pupils with SEND since September 2023 (Figure 12).

Among primary school teachers, the most commonly needed services were a speech and language therapist (58%), educational psychologist (53%), and local authority education services (32%).

The most common response given by secondary school teachers was that they did not need support for pupils with SEND from any of the external services we asked about (41%). The most common support required were mental health services (30%) and an educational psychologist (21%).

Special school teachers also commonly needed support from a speech and language therapist (81%), an occupational therapist (67%) and social services (60%). With the exception of support from an educational psychologist, a larger proportion of special school teachers required support from each specialist service compared to primary and secondary school teachers.

We asked teachers who said they had required support from any external specialist whether they had received the support they needed (Figure 13).

A small minority of primary (23%) and secondary school teachers (16%) were able to access the external support they needed all or most of the time, while a minority of special school teachers (41%) said the same.

A small minority of primary (14%) and secondary school teachers (15%) said they were never able to access this external support, while very few special school teachers (7%) were never able to access external support.

Across all phases, findings were similar to those from December 2023, when we last asked this question.

9.2 Access to internal specialist support for pupils with SEND

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 14).

A large majority of primary school teachers said they required support from a SENCO (86%) or from teaching assistants (80%). About half (49%) said they required support from their school safeguarding lead(s).

Similarly, a large majority of secondary school teachers said they required support from teaching assistants (74%), SENCOs (71%). About half (48%) said they required support from their school safeguarding lead(s).

Almost all special school teachers (93%) said they required support from teaching assistants, while a large majority (78%) said they required support from their school’s safeguarding lead(s) and about half (49%) said they required support from other internal support staff.

We asked teachers who said they had required support from any internal specialist if they had received the support they needed (Figure 15).

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

A large majority of primary (69%), and special school teachers (80%) were able to access the support they required always or most of the time, while a majority of secondary school teachers (58%) said the same. These findings were similar to those from December 2023.

9.3 Barriers to supporting pupils with SEND

We asked leaders if their school experiences any barriers to effectively meeting the needs of pupils with SEND (Figure 16).

Almost all primary school leaders (95%) said that lack of funding is a barrier to effectively meeting the needs of pupils with SEND. A large majority also said that lack of access to external services or professionals (81%) and staff supporting a large number of pupils with differing needs (82%) are barriers.

Similarly, a large majority of secondary school leaders selected lack of funding (84%), lack of access to external services or professionals (83%) and and staff supporting a large number of pupils with differing needs (71%) as barriers.

The most commonly selected barriers among special school leaders were lack of funding (69%), lack of access to external services or professionals (45%) and lack of support from the local authority (33%). Special school leaders selected all barriers less frequently than mainstream teachers.

9.4 School leader confidence in supporting pupils with SEND

We asked leaders to what extent they agree that their school can effectively support pupils with SEND (Figure 17).

A large majority of primary (69%) and secondary school leaders (73%) agreed or strongly agreed, while almost all special school leaders (99%) agreed or strongly agreed.

A small minority of primary (19%) and secondary leaders (17%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that their school can effectively support pupils with SEND. Very few special school leaders (>1%) said the same.

10. Awareness of National Professional Qualifications

We asked teachers which of the recently reformed National Professional Qualifications (NPQs) they had heard of. A large majority of teachers (69%) had heard of the Senior Leadership NPQ, while the majority (59%) had heard of the Headship NPQ. Teachers had least commonly heard of the Early Years Leadership NPQ (22%) and the Executive Leadership NPQ (19%). A small minority of teachers (17%) had not heard of any of the NPQs we asked about.

We then asked teachers who were aware of each qualification who they think each qualification is aimed at.A large majority (87%) said they thought the Senior Leadership NPQ was aimed at teaching staff who are aspiring to become senior leaders, while the majority (54%) said they thought the Headship NPQ was aimed at staff who have been in senior leadership roles for some time.

The majority (62%) said they thought the Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators NPQ is aimed at teaching staff who have recently moved to a specialist leadership role or area.

The majority said that the Early Years Leadership NPQ is aimed at teaching staff who want to remain in the classroom but wish to develop leadership and expertise in a role or area (64%) or teaching staff who are aspiring to become senior leaders (63%).

A large majority said they thought the following NPQs are aimed at teaching staff who want to remain in the classroom but wish to develop leadership and expertise in a role or area:

• Leading Behaviour and Culture (71%)
• Leading Literacy (78%)
• Leading Teaching (82%)
• Leading Teacher Development (75%)
• Leading Primary Mathematics (81%)

11. Wraparound childcare provision

A large majority of primary school leaders (87%) said their school offers wraparound childcare, this being made up of those whose school offers childcare both before and after school (72%), before school only (13%), and after school only (2%).

A small minority of special school leaders (21%) said their school offers wraparound childcare.

A small minority of leaders whose school currently offers wraparound childcare (17%) said their school plans to expand the number of places or hours of wraparound childcare from September 2024, while the majority (60%) said their school does not plan to do so.

Very few primary and special school leaders whose school does not currently offer wraparound childcare (8%) said they plan to start providing wraparound childcare provision from September 2024. We asked leaders whose school does not plan to expand or offer supervised wraparound childcare why they were not planning to do so (Figure 18).

The most common reasons given by primary school leaders were insufficient demand from parents (40%), expanding or offering wraparound childcare not being financially viable for the school (32%), and not having the space or facilities (27%).

The most common reasons given by special school leaders were expanding or offering wraparound childcare not being financially viable for the school (46%), being unable to recruit staff (25%), and another reason not covered in the survey options (37%). The majority of those who said there was another reason specified that this related to issues around school transport.

We asked all primary and special school leaders whose school offers wraparound childcare how often, since September 2023, their school has been able to fully meet the demand from parents for wraparound childcare (Figure 19).

A large majority of primary and special school leaders (84%) said their school was able to meet demand all or most of the time. This was higher than in March 2023, when 77% of primary leaders said the same. Very few leaders said their school was able to meet demand some (8%) or none of the time (1%).

We asked the leaders whose school offers supervised wraparound childcare but were not able to meet demand all of the time why this was (Figure 20).

The most common reasons given were lack of space on school premises (41%), inability to recruit enough staff (35%), or for other reasons not covered in the survey options (30%).

Finally, we asked the leaders whose school offers wraparound childcare which types of staff they have used to deliver wraparound childcare since September 2023. The most common responses were that the school has used teaching assistants (74%), qualified childcare workers (34%), or teachers (24%) to deliver wraparound childcare.

12. Glossary of terms

National Professional Qualification (NPQ): Training courses for teachers and leaders who want to broaden their knowledge, expertise and skills in specific areas of an education professional’s practice. NPQs are part of a wider set of teacher development reforms which together will create a ‘golden thread’ of high-quality evidence underpinning the support, training and development available through the entirety of a teacher’s career.

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 a special educational need or disability. Almost all pupils in special schools have an education, health and care plan (EHCP).