Research and analysis

School and college voice: April 2025

Updated 25 September 2025

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 April 2025 survey wave of the School and College Voice.

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 ran a survey between 1 May and 27 May. The respondents were:

Audience	Responses
Primary school leaders	770
Secondary school leaders	834
Special school leaders	204
Primary school teachers	944
Secondary school teachers	852
Special school teachers	740

Questions with fewer than 30 responses (before weighting) are not included in this report, and base sizes of below 100 should be treated with caution. 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 2023 to 2024. 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.

In this report we round figures to the nearest whole number. 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. Unless otherwise stated, when we refer to the ‘average’ we are reporting the arithmetic mean.

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

Topics covered in this survey

The survey included questions about:

• Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) provision within mainstream schools
• Special Educational Needs (SEN) units
• breakfast clubs
• careers advisers in schools
• sexual violence, harassment, and misogyny in schools
• protective security measures
• confidence in management of allergies in schools
• engagement with the Teaching for Mastery Programme and other Mastery approaches
• generative artificial intelligence (AI) and personalised learning

SEND provision within mainstream schools

We asked primary and secondary school leaders which provisions or support, if any, were available to all pupils in their school regardless of whether they have an identified SEND need.

Figure 1: Provisions or support that mainstream school leaders say is available to pupils regardless of whether they have an identified SEND need

Response	Primary	Secondary
Resources to aid concentration or attention	87%	52%
Focused one-to-one or small group support or interventions outside of the main classroom	85%	67%
Teaching assistant support to complete learning tasks within the classroom	78%	48%
Individualised rewards system	76%	62%
Access to a designated quiet room	57%	53%
Modification to classroom or learning environment	55%	33%
Access to assistive technology	43%	48%
None of the above	3%	8%
Other	13%	10%
Don’t know	0%	1%

Base: Primary and secondary leaders (n = 1604). Data table reference = “sendprovision_universalsupport”.

We also asked primary and secondary school teachers which provisions or support, if any, were available to all pupils in their classes regardless of whether they have an identified SEND need.

Figure 2: Provisions or support that mainstream teachers say are available to pupils regardless of whether they have an identified SEND need

Response	Primary	Secondary
Resources to aid concentration or attention	83%	35%
Focused one-to-one or small group support or interventions outside of the main classroom	77%	33%
Teaching assistant support to complete learning tasks within the classroom	73%	32%
Individualised rewards system	60%	44%
Modification to classroom or learning environment	39%	18%
Access to a designated quiet room	37%	30%
Access to assistive technology	31%	28%
None of the above	3%	26%
Other	6%	5%
Don’t know	0%	1%

Base: Primary and secondary teachers (n = 1796). Data table reference = “sendprovision_universalsupport”.

We asked primary and secondary school leaders which types of provision are offered in their school as a form of targeted support.

Figure 3: Type of targeted provisions leaders say are offered to pupils

Response	Primary	Secondary
Small group or one-to-one educational interventions by teaching staff	91%	85%
Small group or one-to-one pastoral support by teaching staff	90%	87%
Flexible lesson timing or duration	87%	89%
Formally arranged changes to school timetable	76%	88%
Intervention sessions with external specialists	83%	83%
Access to a quiet room	75%	83%
Assistive technology	57%	76%
Access to Resourced Provision (RP) or specialist SEN unit	25%	56%
Other	9%	7%
Don’t know	0%	0%

Base: Primary and secondary leaders (n = 1604). Data table reference = “sendprovision_targetedsupport”.

We asked primary and secondary school teachers which types of provision are offered in their classes as a form of targeted support.

Figure 4: Targeted provisions teachers say are offered to pupils

Response	Primary	Secondary
Small group or one-to-one educational interventions by teaching staff	82%	57%
Flexible lesson timing or duration	71%	80%
Small group or one-to-one pastoral support by teaching staff	74%	62%
Formally arranged changes to school timetable	49%	74%
Intervention sessions with external specialists	65%	62%
Access to a quiet room	55%	61%
Access to RP or specialist SEN unit	22%	60%
Assistive technology	33%	56%
Other	5%	4%
Don’t know	2%	3%

Base: Primary and secondary teachers (n = 1796). Data table reference = “sendprovision_targetedsupport”.

Finally, we asked primary and secondary school leaders what factors, excluding provision specified in a pupil’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP), are considered to determine which pupils in their school receive targeted support.

Figure 5: Which factors determine which pupils receive targeted support, excluding EHCP specified provision

Response	Primary	Secondary
School teaching staff have identified a need	98%	92%
Financial cost of the provision to the school	78%	73%
Parent or pupil request	74%	78%
Availability of trained school staff	78%	74%
Availability of external specialists	77%	76%
Other	4%	4%
Don’t know	0%	2%

Base: Primary and secondary leaders (n = 1604). Data table reference = “sendprovision_targetedsupportfactors”.

SEN units

We asked primary and secondary leaders whether their school has a unit which teaches or supports pupils with SEND in a separate space outside of mainstream classes.

Figure 6: Whether schools have a unit which teaches or supports pupils with SEND in a separate space outside of mainstream classes

Response	Primary	Secondary
Yes - our school runs our own unit/provision not formally recognised by the LA	25%	27%
Our school runs an LA-recognised SEN unit or Resourced Provision	9%	17%
Our school runs a unit or provision, but I am not sure if it is LA-recognised	2%	11%
No unit or provision at the school	65%	46%
Don’t know	1%	2%

Base: Primary and secondary leaders (n = 1604). Respondents could select to say their school had both a non-recognised and a recognised SEN unit, in circumstances where two units operated. Data table reference = “senunit_have”.

We asked primary and secondary leaders whose school runs an LA-recognised SEN unit or Resourced Provision what types of staff work in the unit.

Figure 7: What types of staff work within schools’ LA-recognised SEN units or Resourced Provisions

Response	Primary	Secondary
Teachers with a SEND specialism	73%	85%
Teaching assistants with specific specialisms in SEND	77%	84%
Teaching assistants who are non-specialists in SEND	71%	59%
Teachers without a SEND specialism	41%	46%
Health staff	35%	38%
The headteacher or another senior leader	37%	28%
Other	2%	7%
Don’t know	0%	3%

Base: Primary and secondary leaders whose school runs an LA-recognised SEN unit or Resourced Provision (n = 226). Data table reference = “senunit_staff_surp”.

We asked primary and secondary leaders whose school runs their own SEN unit that is not recognised by the LA or they were unsure if their SEN unit was recognised, what types of staff work within the unit.

Figure 8: What types of staff work within schools’ SEN units or Resourced Provisions that are not LA-recognised

Response	Primary	Secondary
Teaching assistants with specific specialisms in SEND	56%	78%
Teaching assistants who are non-specialists in SEND	67%	70%
Teachers with a SEND specialism	35%	62%
Teachers without a SEND specialism	30%	49%
The headteacher or another senior leader	26%	27%
Health staff	13%	27%
Other	3%	6%
Don’t know	0%	1%

Base: Primary and secondary leaders whose school runs their own SEN unit, it isn’t recognised by the LA or they’re unsure if it is or not (n = 531). Data table reference = “senunit_staff_schoolrun”.

Breakfast clubs

We asked primary school leaders if their school offered any form of childcare provision or breakfast provision.

Figure 9: Childcare provisions offered in primary and special schools

Response	Percentage
Before-school childcare, with breakfast provision	85%
After-school childcare (not including extracurricular clubs)	70%
Breakfast provided before or during the school day, not including childcare	20%
Before-school childcare, without breakfast provision	9%
My school does not offer any of the above	8%
Don’t know	0%

Base: Primary school leaders (n = 770). Data table reference = “breakfast_childcareoffer”.

We asked primary leaders whose school provides breakfast which staffing challenges they were currently experiencing when providing breakfast provision in their school.

Figure 10: Staffing challenges schools were currently experiencing when providing breakfast provision in their school

Response	Percentage
Recruiting enough suitable staff	44%
Staff’s existing workload including administrative burden	35%
Amending or extending existing staff hours	30%
Another staffing issue	17%
Training existing staff	13%
None of these	31%
Don’t know	2%

Base: All primary leaders whose school provides breakfast (n = 675). Data table reference = “breakfast_challenges”.

We asked primary leaders which barriers they anticipate encountering when delivering free breakfast clubs. Free breakfast clubs were defined as 30 minutes of childcare and food to all pupils who want it in in state-funded schools with primary aged pupils in England.

Figure 11: Anticipated barriers when delivering free breakfast clubs

Response	Percentage
It’s not financially viable for the school	75%
We won’t have enough staff	71%
We won’t have suitable or enough space or facilities	51%
Accommodating the individual needs of all the children	50%
We won’t have enough demand from parents	16%
There are other providers nearby that meet this need	13%
None of these	7%
Other	5%
Don’t know	2%

Base: All primary leaders (n = 770). Data table reference = “breakfast_barriers”.

We asked all primary leaders whose school would not have enough staff for a free breakfast club, how many additional staff they would need to recruit (from any source), to meet their anticipated demand in delivering the free breakfast club for all pupils who want it.

Figure 12: Number of additional staff needed to recruit to meet anticipated demand in delivering the free breakfast club for all pupils who want it

Response	Percentage
1-2	10%
3-4	19%
5+	33%
Don’t Know	38%

Base:All primary leaders whose school wouldn’t have enough staff for a free breakfast club (n = 546). Data table reference = “breakfast_additionalstaff”.

Careers advisers in schools

We asked secondary leaders about how their school provides careers advice to pupils.

Figure 13: How schools provide career advice to pupils

Response	Percentage
Through a careers adviser	89%
Teachers	78%
Through a careers leader	73%
Via the school website	48%
None of the above	0%
Don’t know	1%

Base: All secondary leaders (n = 834). Data table reference = “careeradvice_provide”.

We asked secondary leaders whose school provides careers advice through a careers adviser, who the careers adviser were employed by. A minority (46%) said the school employs them directly, 32% said they were brought in externally, 18% said they were both employed directly and brought in externally. The remaining 4% did not know.

We also asked secondary leaders whose school provides careers advice through a careers adviser in which ways can pupils receive personal guidance from a careers adviser about their future career throughout their time at school.

Figure 14: How pupils can receive personal guidance from a careers adviser about their future career throughout their time at school

Response	Percentage
Several in-depth conversations with a careers adviser	66%
One in-depth conversation with a careers adviser	64%
Participating in a group exercise with a careers adviser	51%
A short conversation with a careers adviser	39%
Other	11%
Don’t know	1%

Base: All secondary leaders whose school provides careers advice through a careers adviser (n = 749). Data table reference = “careeradvice_receive”.

Finally we asked secondary leaders what barriers there are to providing pupils with access to personal guidance from a careers adviser.

Figure 15: Barriers to providing pupils with access to personal guidance from a careers adviser

Response	Percentage
Insufficient school funding for career services	51%
Pupil attendance	45%
Some pupils do not want to access the careers offer	33%
Lack of dedicated curriculum time for pupils to meet with career advisers	32%
Difficulty in recruiting or accessing suitably qualified career advisers	21%
Difficulty in recruiting or accessing career advisers with specific skill sets	15%
Not applicable - there aren’t any barriers	11%
Other	5%
Don’t know	5%

Base: All secondary leaders (n = 834). Data table reference = “careeradvice_barriers”.

Sexual violence, harassment, and misogyny in schools

We asked primary and secondary teachers and leaders if they consented to answer questions on the topic of sexual violence and harassment against women and girls. Sexual violence was defined as sexual offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This includes but is not limited to rape, assault by penetration, sexual assault, and causing someone to engage in sexual activity without consent. Sexual harassment was defined as ‘unwanted conduct of a sexual nature’ that can occur online and offline and both inside and outside of school. For example, sexual remarks about someone’s appearance, sharing of unwanted explicit content, unwanted sexual comments and messages (including on social media), or physical behaviour such as deliberately brushing up against someone.

For those who consented (96%), we asked whether child-on-child sexual violence or sexual harassment is a safeguarding issue that their school has actively dealt with this academic year.

Figure 16: Whether schools have actively dealt with child-on-child sexual violence or sexual harassment this academic year

Phase	Yes	No	Prefer not to say	Don’t know	Total
Primary	28%	66%	2%	4%	100%
Secondary	70%	12%	3%	15%	100%

Base: Primary and secondary leaders who consented to answer questions on the topic of sexual violence and harrassment against women and girls (n = 1541). Data table reference = “attitudegirls_action”.

We asked primary and secondary leaders whose schools have dealt with sexual violence or harassment, how many individual safeguarding incidents involving child-on-child sexual violence or sexual harassment their school actively dealt with this academic year.

Figure 17: Number of individual safeguarding incidents involving child-on-child sexual violence or sexual harassment schools have actively dealt with this academic year

Incidents	Primary	Secondary
Prefer not to say	11%	13%
Don’t know	25%	62%
1-2	49%	11%
3-5	12%	9%
6-10	3%	2%
11+	1%	3%

Base: Primary and secondary leaders whose schools have dealt with sexual violence or harassment this academic year (n = 777). Data table reference = “attitudegirls_number”. 0 responses are not charted.

We also asked primary and secondary teachers and leaders to what extent they are confident in taking action (formal or informal) to help prevent a pupil carrying out sexual violence or sexual harassment against another pupil at their school.

Figure 18: Teacher and leader confidence in taking action to help prevent a pupil carrying out sexual violence or sexual harassment against another pupil at their school

Level	Very confident	Fairly confident	Not very confident	Not at all confident	Prefer not to say	Don’t know	Total
Teacher	31%	55%	10%	2%	0%	1%	100%
Leader	37%	56%	5%	0%	0%	1%	100%

Base: Primary and secondary teachers (n = 1747) and primary and secondary leaders (n = 1541) who agreed to answer questions about sexual violence, harassment and misogyny against women and girls. Data table reference = “attitudegirls_confident_preventative”.

Similarly, we asked to what extent primary and secondary teachers and leaders are confident in taking action (formal or informal) in response to a pupil carrying out sexual violence or sexual harassment against another pupil at their school.

Figure 19: Teacher and leader confidence in taking action in response a pupil carrying out sexual violence or sexual harassment against another pupil at their school

Level	Very confident	Fairly confident	Not very confident	Not at all confident	Prefer not to say	Don’t know	Total
Teacher	43%	48%	7%	1%	0%	0%	100%
Leader	44%	49%	5%	0%	0%	1%	100%

Base: Primary and secondary teachers (n = 1747) and primary and secondary leaders (n = 1541) who agreed to answer questions about sexual violence, harassment and misogyny against women and girls. Data table reference = “attitudegirls_confident_responsive”.

Finally, how often primary and secondary teachers witness pupils making misogynistic comments or displaying misogynistic behaviours against female pupils.

Figure 20: How often teachers witness pupils making misogynistic comments or displaying misogynistic behaviours against female pupils

Phase	Every day	At least once a week	At least once a month	Less often	Never	Total
Primary	1%	7%	10%	48%	32%	100%
Secondary	6%	21%	22%	36%	12%	100%

Base: All primary and secondary teachers who consented to answer questions on the topic of sexual violence and harrassment against women and girls (n = 1747). Data table reference = “attitudegirls_misogynistic”. Don’t know and prefer not to say are not charted.

Protective security measures

We asked primary, secondary and special leaders if they consented to answer questions on the topic of their school’s plans for protective security measures, in particular those regarding terrorist attacks or suspected terrorist attacks. For those who consented (96%), we asked whether they had ever heard of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, also known as Martyn’s Law, before the survey.

Figure 21: Whether school leaders are aware of The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Phase	Yes - and I knew a lot about it	Yes - and I knew a little about it	Yes - but I have only heard of the name	No - I have never heard of it	Don’t know	Total
Primary	9%	46%	19%	26%	0%	100%
Secondary	13%	45%	17%	24%	0%	100%
Special	10%	45%	26%	19%	0%	100%

Base: All school leaders who consented to answer questions on emergency incidents (n = 1749). Data table reference = “emergency_billaware”.

We also asked whether their school currently has a counter terrorism policy in place.

Figure 22: Whether schools have a counter terrorism policy in place

Response	Primary	Secondary	Special
Yes - we have a stand-alone policy	15%	17%	14%
Yes - it is embedded into other policies	54%	61%	65%
Not yet, but the school is currently in the process of developing one	14%	10%	6%
No policy in place and the school is not currently in the process of developing one	9%	3%	7%
Don’t know	9%	8%	8%

Base: All school leaders who consented to answer questions on emergency incidents (n = 1749). Data table reference = “emergency_policy”.

Finally, we asked school leaders which protective measures their school currently has in place.

Figure 23: Which protective measures schools currently have in place

Response	Primary	Secondary	Special
Physical security measures	71%	85%	82%
A written policy on evacuation, lockdown and communication in the event of a threat from terrorism or intruders on site	65%	75%	72%
A named person or team responsible for considering the risk from terrorism and the school response strategy	45%	50%	37%
Other	2%	3%	4%
None of the above	3%	1%	2%
Don’t know	3%	3%	2%

Base: All school leaders who consented to answer questions on emergency incidents (n = 1749). Data table reference = “emergency_measures”.

Confidence in management of allergies in schools

We asked school leaders whether their school has a policy in place to manage exposure to allergens and allergic responses, including anaphylaxis. The majority said it was embedded into another policy (71%), while 17% said there was a specific allergy policy, 4% said no and 9% did not know.

We asked all leaders whose school has a specific or embedded policy managing exposure to allergens and allergic response what the allergy policy covers.

Figure 24: What schools’ allergy policies cover

Response	Primary	Secondary	Special
Storage and handling of medicine	88%	74%	95%
Individual healthcare plans or individual risk assessments	87%	72%	95%
Emergency procedures	85%	69%	90%
Food provided by the school	87%	69%	86%
Staff training around allergy prevention	79%	62%	82%
Food brought in from home	80%	45%	78%
Preventing contact with allergens throughout the school day	68%	48%	67%
Parent and pupil awareness of allergies	56%	41%	51%
Other	1%	1%	2%
Don’t know	8%	20%	2%

Base: All leaders whose school has a policy managing exposure to allergens and allergic response (n = 1578). Data table reference = “allergies_policycover”.

We asked teachers whether they currently, or have previously, taught a child who has a severe allergy. The majority said yes (80%) .

We asked all teachers how confident they felt in being able to manage exposure to allergens for the pupils they teach.

Figure 25: Teacher confidence in managing exposure to allergens for the pupils they teach

Phase	Very confident	Fairly confident	Not very confident	Not at all confident	Don’t know	Total
Primary	31%	60%	8%	1%	1%	100%
Secondary	21%	54%	22%	3%	1%	100%
Special	33%	59%	7%	1%	1%	100%

Base: All teachers (n = 2536). Data table reference = “allergies_confidenceexposure”.

We asked all teachers how confident they felt in being able to manage allergic response for the pupils they teach.

Figure 26: Teacher confidence in managing allergic response for the pupils they teach

Phase	Very confident	Fairly confident	Not very confident	Not at all confident	Don’t know	Total
Primary	31%	56%	12%	1%	0%	100%
Secondary	19%	53%	23%	4%	1%	100%
Special	36%	53%	8%	2%	1%	100%

Base: All teachers (n = 2536). Data table reference = “allergies_confidenceresponse”.

We asked teachers who do not feel confident managing allergens and allergic response why this was.

Figure 27: Why teachers do not feel confident managing allergens and allergic response

Response	Primary	Secondary	Special
I’ve never experienced a pupil having an allergic reaction in my class	72%	74%	64%
I am not trained in managing exposure to allergens	51%	64%	54%
I am not trained to recognise and respond to an allergic reaction	40%	45%	35%
I’m unsure what our school’s policy is on management of allergies	12%	19%	8%
I do not know who has an allergy or what type of allergy they have	3%	10%	5%
Other	7%	5%	10%
Don’t know	0%	1%	0%

Base: Teachers who feel not at all confident or not very confident managing allergens and allergic response (n = 487). Data table reference = “allergies_notconfident”.

We also asked all leaders how confident they felt that all the staff at their school are able to manage exposure to allergens.

Figure 28: Leader confidence in all the staff at their school being able to manage exposure to allergens

Phase	Very confident	Fairly confident	Not very confident	Not at all confident	Don’t know	Total
Primary	32%	60%	6%	1%	1%	100%
Secondary	14%	61%	13%	3%	9%	100%
Special	34%	62%	2%	0%	1%	100%

Base: All leaders (n = 1808). Data table reference = “allergies_confidenceexposurestaff”.

We also asked all leaders how confident they felt that all the staff at their school are able to manage allergic response.

Figure 29: Leader confidence in all the staff at their school being able to manage allergic response

Phase	Very confident	Fairly confident	Not very confident	Not at all confident	Don’t know	Total
Primary	33%	60%	5%	1%	1%	100%
Secondary	18%	61%	13%	2%	6%	100%
Special	45%	53%	3%	0%	0%	100%

Base: All leaders (n = 1808). Data table reference = “allergies_confidenceresponsestaff”.

We also asked leaders who do not feel confident that the staff at their school are able to manage exposure to allergens or allergic response why this was.

Figure 30: Why leaders do not feel confident that the staff at their school are able to manage exposure to allergens or allergic response

Response	Primary	Secondary	Special
Not enough staff are trained on managing exposure to allergens	55%	66%	59%
Not enough staff are trained to recognise and respond to an allergic reaction	49%	58%	25%
Communication around allergens to parents and/or pupils could be improved	34%	36%	42%
Low staff awareness of our allergy policy	34%	41%	9%
We are not always told if a pupil/learner has an allergy or how severe the allergy is	33%	29%	21%
Our current allergy management processes could be improved	24%	21%	9%
Other	7%	4%	0%
Don’t know	2%	4%	13%

Base: Leaders who feel not at all confident or not very confident that all school staff could manage exposure to allergens or allergic response (n = 254). Data table reference = “allergies_notconfidentstaff”.

Engagement with the Teaching for Mastery Programme and other Mastery approaches

We asked all primary teachers and any secondary teachers who teach mathematics if their school applies a Teaching for Mastery approach (partially or fully) when teaching mathematics.

Figure 31: Whether schools apply a Teaching for Mastery approach when teaching mathematics

Response	Primary	Secondary
Yes	92%	65%
We did apply a Mastery approach but no longer do so	2%	10%
No	2%	21%
Don’t know	4%	4%

Base: All primary and secondary school mathematics teachers who teach mathematics (n = 1050). Data table reference = “mastery_apply”.

We asked primary teachers and secondary school mathematics teachers whose school applies a Teaching for Mastery approach, the extent that a Teaching for Mastery approach embedded in their school’s mathematics lessons.

Figure 32: The extent that a Teaching for Mastery approach is embedded in primary and secondary school mathematics teachers’ lessons

Phase	Fully embedded already	Partially embedded already	Planning to embed, but not done yet	Not planning to embed	Don’t know	Total
Primary	64%	32%	2%	0%	1%	100%
Secondary	26%	58%	8%	6%	2%	100%

Base: Primary teachers and secondary school mathematics teachers whose school applies a Teaching for Mastery approach (n = 932). Data table reference = “mastery_embedded”. ‘Not applicable - I don’t teach mathematics’ is not charted.

We asked primary teachers and secondary school mathematics teachers whose school does not apply a Teaching for Mastery approach, why their school had chosen not to apply this approach.

Figure 33: Why teachers say their schools had not applied a Teaching for Mastery approach

Response	Primary	Secondary
Alternative approaches were considered more effective	32%	56%
Not enough time available to train teachers to apply mastery effectively	11%	15%
Changing maths pedagogical practice is not a current priority	15%	14%
Cannot access suitable training or resources to support teachers to embed mastery approach	7%	0%
Using a Mastery approach has never been considered	0%	5%
Other	21%	14%
Don’t know	30%	10%

Base: Primary and secondary school mathematics teachers whose school does not apply a Teaching for Mastery approach (n = 45). Data table reference = “mastery_notapplied”.

Finally, we asked primary and secondary teachers who teach mathematics how they have accessed continuing professional development (CPD) for mathematics teaching through their school.

Figure 34: How mathematics teachers have accessed CPD for mathematics teaching through their school

Response	Primary	Secondary
School led in house training	77%	54%
Maths Hubs training	42%	57%
External training courses	19%	41%
Trust led in house training	13%	14%
Other	4%	5%
Don’t know	5%	6%

Base: Primary and secondary school mathematics teachers (n = 1050). Data table reference = “mastery_cpdaccess”.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) and personalised learning

When asked about generative AI use in November 2024, 50% of teachers had used generative AI tools in their role.

We asked all teachers how they felt about the potential use of technology and AI tools by teachers to deliver personalised learning. We defined personalised learning as where teachers use technologies to help change a pupil’s learning experience to fit their specific needs, abilities, and interests, including to track progress and provide feedback.

Figure 35: How teachers feel about the potential use of technology and AI tools by teachers to deliver personalised learning

Phase	Very positive	Positive	Neither positive nor negative	Negative	Very negative	Don’t know	Total
Primary	19%	41%	28%	5%	2%	6%	100%
Secondary	18%	42%	26%	7%	4%	4%	100%
Special	16%	44%	23%	8%	3%	4%	100%

Base: All teachers (n = 2536). Data table reference = “ai_personalised”.

We also asked all teachers whether they have used technology and AI tools to provide personalised learning to the pupils they teach.

Figure 36: Whether teachers have used technology and AI tools to provide personalised learning to the pupils they teach

Phase	Yes	No - but I plan to	No - and I do not plan to	Don’t know	Total
Primary	39%	34%	23%	4%	100%
Secondary	44%	31%	21%	3%	100%
Special	45%	26%	25%	4%	100%

Base: All teachers (n = 2536). Data table reference = “ai_personalised_used”.

We asked all teachers what concerns they have with the use of technology and AI tools to deliver personalised learning.

Figure 37: Teachers’ concerns with the use of technology and AI tools to deliver personalised learning

Response	Primary	Secondary	Special
Increases pupil reliance on technology in lessons	51%	64%	38%
Information from the tools may be false or misleading	44%	62%	44%
Technology isn’t equally accessible to all children and may create an unfair advantage	51%	62%	51%
Increases pupils screen time	57%	54%	42%
Less inclusive for pupils with SEND	18%	19%	42%
Increases teacher reliance on technology to deliver lessons	42%	36%	37%
Reduces pupil/teacher interaction	40%	40%	35%
Privacy and security of pupil data	33%	36%	30%
Technology is too new for teachers to be properly trained to use it	28%	35%	21%
Lack of pupil progression	6%	12%	5%
I don’t have any concerns	10%	5%	8%
Other	7%	7%	6%

Base: All teachers (n = 2536). Data table reference = “ai_personalised_concerns”.

We asked all teachers what the advantages of using technology and AI tools to deliver personalised learning are.

Figure 38: Advantages of using technology and AI tools to deliver personalised learning for teachers

Response	Primary	Secondary	Special
Reduces time creating lesson materials	76%	74%	74%
Reduces time marking	50%	57%	32%
Enhances pupil engagement	50%	39%	37%
Pupils are able to learn at their own pace	32%	34%	26%
More inclusive for pupils with SEND	32%	25%	25%
Improves quality of education for all pupils	20%	22%	18%
Improves pupil attainment	21%	20%	12%
I don’t think there are any advantages	5%	6%	9%
Other	4%	3%	5%

Base: All teachers (n = 2536). Data table reference = “ai_personalised_trainingadvantages”.

Glossary of terms

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.

Some 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).