Research and analysis

School and college voice: December 2024

Updated 29 May 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 DfE 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 2024 survey wave of the School and College Voice.

Methodology

The SCV survey is answered by teachers and leaders who have agreed to participate in regular research surveys on topical education issues.

We select participants randomly using records from the School Workforce Census and invite them to take part. For the first survey of the academic year, we send invitation letters and emails to teachers and leaders. For subsequent surveys in the same academic year, we send the invitation by emails and text messages to those who agreed to join the panel in the first survey.

We ran a survey between 10 December and 23 December 2024. The respondents were:

Audience	Responses
Primary school leaders	485
Secondary school leaders	569
Special school leaders	167
Primary school teachers	341
Secondary school teachers	405
Special school teachers	344

Questions with fewer than 30 responses (before weighting) are not included in this report. 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 to 2024 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:

• extra-curricular activities
• inclusive mainstream
• oracy
• assessment and accountability
• changes in primary school pupil numbers
• high-caffeine energy drinks
• recruitment and retention of support staff
• specialist teachers
• mentor training
• knife crime
• leaders’ experience of the menopause
• pupil behaviour

Extracurricular activities

We asked primary and secondary leaders what extracurricular activities their school has been able to offer for pupils this academic year.

Figure 1: Top 10 types of extracurricular activities offered to pupils this academic year

Response	Percentage
Competitive team sports	90%
Positions of responsibility	81%
Orchestra, band, choir or other musical performance group	79%
Individual instrument or singing lessons	73%
Arts, crafts, and design	70%
Drama and theatre	66%
Clubs relating to an academic subject	64%
Interest clubs	61%
Games clubs	57%
Dance	56%

Base: All primary and secondary leaders. (n = 1054). Data table reference = “extracurricular_activities”. Top 10 types of extracurricular_activities are charted.

We asked primary and secondary leaders how much time they expect pupils to engage in extracurricular activities per week in their school.

The majority of leaders said their school does not have a minimum expectation of time for pupil engagement in extracurricular activities (59%), however those that did, expected between 1-2 hours per week (30%).

We asked primary and secondary teachers to what extent they agreed or disagreed that their school dedicates enough time to extracurricular and enrichment activities each week.

Figure 2: The extent that teachers agreed or disagreed that their school dedicates enough time to extracurricular and enrichment activities each week

Audience	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Don’t know	Total
Teachers	30%	40%	12%	14%	3%	1%	100%

Base: All primary and secondary teachers. (n = 746). Data table reference = “extracurricular_time”.

Inclusive mainstream

We asked primary and secondary teachers and leaders what would be the most helpful actions for their school to be inclusive for pupils with SEND.

Figure 3: The most helpful actions for schools to be inclusive for pupils with SEND

Response	Teacher	Leader
More opportunities for individualised or small-group support for pupils who need it	73%	65%
Increased access to assistive technologies to support teaching and learning	38%	30%
Having the ability to adapt the curriculum to make it accessible to all	34%	34%
Supporting children with SEND to learn alongside pupils without SEND	33%	38%
Additional training or CPD for school/college staff on inclusive practice	30%	41%
Further adaptations to the school and classroom physical environment	23%	26%
Guidance and resources to help us create an inclusive school ethos and policies	15%	10%
Other	14%	14%
None of the above	3%	2%
Don’t know	0%	1%

Base: All primary and secondary leaders. (n = 1054) and all primary and secondary teachers. (n = 746). Respondents could select up to three responses. Data table reference = “inclusivemainstream_helpful”.

Oracy

We asked primary teachers to rate their confidence in developing pupils’ spoken language and listening skills.

Figure 4: Teacher confidence in developing pupils’ spoken language and listening skills

Audience	Very confident	Fairly confident	Not very confident	Not at all confident	Don’t know	Total
Primary teachers	21%	70%	7%	1%	1%	100%

Base: All primary school teachers. (n = 341). Data table reference = “oracy_confidence”.

We also asked primary leaders and teachers if their school has a specific written strategy for developing pupils’ spoken language and listening skills.

Figure 5: Whether schools have a specific written strategy for developing pupils’ spoken language and listening skills

Response	Teacher	Leader
Yes	27%	35%
No, but it is part of our broader learning objectives	49%	59%
No, and it is not part of our broader learning objectives	13%	5%
Don’t know	12%	1%

Base: Primary school leaders. (n = 485) and primary school teachers. (n = 341). Data table reference = “oracy_strategy”.

We asked primary leaders and teachers to what extent that development of pupils’ spoken language and listening skills implemented across the curriculum at their school.

Figure 6: The extent that the development of pupils’ spoken language and listening skills is implemented across the curriculum

Audience	Entirely	Mostly	Partially	Not at all	Don’t know	Total
Teachers	21%	43%	32%	2%	2%	100%
Leaders	24%	49%	25%	2%	1%	100%

Base: Primary school leaders. (n = 485) and primary school teachers. (n = 341). Data table reference = “oracy_implementation”.

We asked primary leaders how useful they found the national curriculum for planning and teaching spoken language and listening skills in their school.

Figure 7: How useful leaders found the national curriculum for planning and teaching spoken language and listening skills in their school

Audience	Very useful	Fairly useful	Not very useful	Not at all useful	Don’t know	Total
Primary leaders	2%	35%	41%	13%	8%	100%

Base: All primary school leaders. (n = 485). Data table reference = “oracy_useful”. “My school does not follow the national curriculum” is not charted.

Assessment and accountability

We asked primary teachers to what extent they agreed or disagreed that the information they get from pupils’ KS1 Phonics Screening Checks is useful to them when identifying the support that the pupils they teach needs.

Figure 8: The extent that teachers agreed or disagreed that the information they get from pupils’ KS1 Phonics Screening Checks is useful to them when identifying the support that the pupils they teach need

Audience	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know	Total
Primary teachers	8%	29%	22%	18%	21%	2%	100%

Base: All primary school teachers. (n = 313). Data table reference = “assessment_phonics”. “Not applicable” is not charted.

We asked primary teachers to what extent they agreed or disagreed that the information they get from pupils’ multiplication tables checks is useful to them when identifying the support that the pupils they teach needs.

Figure 9: The extent that teachers agreed or disagreed that the information they get from pupils’ multiplication tables checks is useful to them when identifying the support that the pupils they teach need

Audience	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know	Total
Primary teachers	7%	27%	24%	21%	19%	2%	100%

Base: All primary school teachers. (n = 301). Data table reference = “assessment_multiplication”. “Not applicable” is not charted.

We asked secondary teachers to what extent they agreed or disagreed that KS2 SATs results provide information that is useful to them when identifying the support that new year 7 pupils will need.

Figure 10: The extent that teachers agreed or disagreed that KS2 SATs results provide information that is useful to them when identifying the support that new year 7 pupils will need

Audience	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know	Total
Secondary teachers	3%	21%	20%	28%	25%	3%	100%

Base: All secondary school teachers who teach years 7, 8 or 9. (n = 362). Data table reference = “assessment_sats”.

We asked secondary teachers to think about the main subject they teach, and consider whether there are any non-exam assessments (e.g. course work, controlled assessments) used in determining the final grade awarded to pupils. The majority of teachers said no (67%), whilst 33% said yes and 1% did not know.

We asked secondary teachers to what extent they agreed or disagreed that modular exams and non-exam assessments fairly assess the skills and knowledge learners have gained in their KS4 studies.

Figure 11: The extent that teachers agreed or disagreed that modular exams and non-exam assessments fairly assess the skills and knowledge learners have gained in their KS4 studies

Assessment	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know	Total
Modular exams	11%	51%	12%	17%	6%	3%	100%
Non-exam assessments	15%	44%	19%	13%	6%	3%	100%

Base: All secondary school teachers who teach years 10 or 11. (n = 361). Data table reference = “assessment_modularexams”. All secondary school teachers who teach years 10 or 11. (n = 335). Data table reference = “assessment_nonexam”. “Not applicable” is not charted.

We asked secondary leaders if the current accountability measures have impacted curriculum and teaching decision making in their school.

Figure 12: Have accountability measures impacted curriculum and teaching decision making?

Audience	No	Yes - Positive	Yes - Negative	Yes - Positive and Negative	Don’t know	Total
Secondary leaders	7%	11%	22%	59%	1%	100%

Base: Secondary leaders. (n = 569). Data table reference = “assessment_decisionmaking”.

For secondary school leaders who said that current accountability measures have had a positive impact, we asked which aspects of curriculum and teaching have been positively impacted.

Figure 13: Aspects of curriculum and teaching that have been positively impacted by accountability measures

Response	Percentage
Help our school focus on areas of improvement	65%
Set clear expectation of what good performance means	54%
Improve pupil outcomes	48%
Encourages our teachers to continuously improve	43%
Enable us to direct resources to pupils that require the most support	37%
None	2%
Other	5%

Base: Secondary leaders who think current accountability measures have had a positive impact on curriculum and teaching decision making. (n = 389). Data table reference = “assessment_positive”.

For secondary school leaders who said that current accountability measures have had a negative impact, we asked which aspects of curriculum and teaching have been negatively impacted.

Figure 14: Aspects of curriculum and teaching that have been negatively impacted by accountability measures

Response	Percentage
It affects what subjects or qualification pupils can choose to study	70%
It creates a stressful learning environment for some or all learners	57%
It has a negative impact on teacher workload	52%
It makes supporting learners with SEND or English as an additional language more difficult	51%
Too much curriculum time focused on exam preparations	49%
It has a negative impact on teacher morale	49%
Too much curriculum time focused on English and maths	32%
None	1%
Other	4%

Base: Secondary leaders who think current accountability measures have had a negative impact on curriculum and teaching decision making. (n = 459). Data table reference = “assessment_negative”.

Changes in primary school pupil numbers

We asked primary teachers whether the overall number of pupils at their school increased, decreased, or stayed about the same over the last 12 months.

Figure 15: Changes to overall number of pupils over the last 12 months

Audience	Increased	Decreased	Stayed the same	Don’t know	Total
Primary teachers	33%	23%	38%	7%	100%

Base: All primary school teachers. (n = 341). Data table reference = “pupilfall_numbers”.

Where primary teachers said that pupil numbers had decreased at the school, we also asked about changes and cutbacks, if any, their school had made in the past 12 months.

Figure 16: Changes and cutbacks schools had made in the past 12 months

Response	Percentage
Decreased the use of supply teachers	80%
Made reductions to non-teaching staff	68%
Cut back on non-essential school programs	59%
Not replaced teachers when they leave the school	54%
Combined classes across different year groups	29%
Made teachers redundant	21%
Combined classes within the same year group	20%
None of the above	4%

Base: All primary school teachers whose number of pupils have decreased at their school. (n = 84). Data table reference = “pupilfall_cutbacks”.

We asked those teachers whether, because of changes due to decreasing pupil numbers, they had taken on any additional responsibilities in the last 12 months.

Figure 17: Additional responsibilities taken on by teachers in the last 12 months

Response	Percentage
Taken on additional administrative work	66%
Break and lunchtime pupil supervision	50%
Taught a combined class of pupils from different year groups	19%
Taught a combined class of pupils from the same year group	8%
Other	23%
None of the above	17%

Base: All primary school teachers whose school has made changes as a result of decreasing pupil numbers. (n = 80). Data table reference = “pupilfall_responsibility”.

High-caffeine energy drinks

We asked primary, secondary and special teachers to what extent they agreed or disagreed that pupils at their school can easily access high-caffeine energy drinks either at home, in school or in the local shops.

Figure 18: Extent to which teachers agreed or disagreed that pupils at their school can easily access high-caffeine energy drinks

Phase	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know	Total
Primary	9%	26%	11%	19%	13%	21%	100%
Secondary	31%	48%	7%	8%	2%	4%	100%
Special	7%	18%	12%	20%	36%	7%	100%

Base: All primary, secondary and special school teachers (n = 1090). Data table reference = “energydrinks_access”.

We also asked teachers a series of questions about the effects of high-caffeine energy drinks.

Firstly, we asked teachers to what extent they agreed or disagreed that high-caffeine energy drinks negatively impact the health and wellbeing of pupils at their school.

Figure 19: Extent to which teachers agreed or disagreed that high-caffeine energy drinks negatively impact the health and wellbeing of pupils at their school

Phase	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know	Total
Primary	23%	23%	13%	10%	4%	27%	100%
Secondary	45%	32%	10%	4%	0%	8%	100%
Special	19%	25%	17%	5%	14%	20%	100%

Base: All primary, secondary and special school teachers (n = 1090). Data table reference = “energydrinks_health”.

We also asked teachers to what extent they agreed or disagreed that high-caffeine energy drinks negatively impact the behaviour of pupils at their school.

Figure 20: Extent to which teachers agreed or disagreed that high-caffeine energy drinks negatively impact the behaviour of pupils at their school

Phase	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know	Total
Primary	16%	16%	18%	14%	6%	30%	100%
Secondary	35%	30%	15%	8%	1%	12%	100%
Special	12%	20%	23%	7%	18%	20%	100%

Base: All primary, secondary and special school teachers (n = 1090). Data table reference = “energydrinks_behaviour”.

We asked teachers to what extent they agreed or disagreed that high-caffeine energy drinks negatively impact pupils’ ability to learn at their school.

Figure 21: Extent to which teachers agreed or disagreed that high-caffeine energy drinks negatively impact pupils’ ability to learn at their school

Phase	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know	Total
Primary	16%	19%	17%	13%	6%	29%	100%
Secondary	30%	34%	16%	7%	1%	12%	100%
Special	12%	18%	24%	7%	16%	23%	100%

Base: All primary, secondary and special school teachers (n = 1090). Data table reference = “energydrinks_learningability”.

Finally, we asked teachers to what extent they agreed or disagreed that pupils’ consumption of high-caffeine energy drinks is not a major concern at their school.

Figure 22: Extent to which teachers agreed or disagreed that pupils’ consumption of high-caffeine energy drinks is not a major concern at their school

Phase	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know	Total
Primary	21%	33%	14%	11%	6%	14%	100%
Secondary	7%	35%	24%	20%	7%	7%	100%
Special	29%	31%	11%	11%	11%	7%	100%

Base: All primary, secondary and special school teachers (n = 1090). Data table reference = “energydrinks_notconcern”.

Recruitment and retention of support staff

We asked primary, secondary and special leaders which non-teaching roles they have recruited for in their school since January 2024.

Figure 23: Non-teaching roles recruited for since January 2024

Response	Special	Secondary	Primary
Teaching assistants or other learning support staff	95%	87%	78%
Pastoral, health and welfare roles	39%	67%	17%
Administration, HR and data support staff	51%	61%	21%
Cover supervisors	15%	59%	10%
Midday supervisors and assistants	39%	28%	53%
Catering, cleaning and site management	38%	50%	30%
Technicians	5%	45%	1%
School Business Professions	17%	19%	11%
Other support roles	9%	13%	4%
We have not recruited for any support roles	5%	4%	13%

Base: All primary, secondary and special leaders. (n = 1221). Data table reference = “sssnb_hiring”.

We asked leaders which, if any, of those non-teaching roles they found hard to fill since January 2024.

Figure 24: Non-teaching roles that leaders had recruited since January 2024 and found hard to fill

Response	Percentage
Teaching assistants or other learning support staff	68%
Pastoral, health and welfare roles	38%
Midday supervisors and assistants	55%
Cover supervisors	52%
Catering, cleaning and site management	36%
Administration, HR and data support staff	30%
School Business Professions	38%
Technicians	48%
Other support roles	32%

Base: Leaders responded based on the roles they had recruited since January 2024, so individual base sizes are different for each job role. Data table reference = “sssnb_hardtofill”.

We asked all leaders which support staff, if any, they do not have enough of to meet the needs of the school.

Figure 25: Support staff that leaders feel like they do not have enough of to meet the needs of the school

Response	Special	Primary	Secondary
Teaching assistants or other learning support staff	77%	76%	71%
Pastoral, health and welfare roles	30%	49%	52%
Midday supervisors and assistants	31%	42%	19%
Cover supervisors	14%	17%	40%
Administration, HR and data support staff	13%	5%	14%
Technicians	2%	3%	11%
Catering, cleaning and site management	9%	7%	10%
School Business Professions	5%	2%	2%
We have sufficient support staff to meet the needs of the school	8%	12%	9%

Base: All primary, secondary and special leaders. (n = 1221). Data table reference = “sssnb_needs”.

We also asked leaders whether the number of support staff positions in their school (excluding teaching assistants) has increased, decreased or stayed the same over the last three academic years.

Figure 26: Changes to the number of support staff positions over the last three academic years

Phase	Increased	Stayed the same	Decreased	Don’t know	Total
Primary	19%	37%	44%	1%	100%
Secondary	35%	30%	32%	4%	100%
Special	48%	31%	20%	1%	100%

Base: All primary, secondary and special leaders. (n = 1221). Data table reference = “sssnb_number”.

For leaders who said that the number of support staff positions have increased in the past three years, we asked what the main reasons were for this increase.

Figure 27:Main reasons for the increase in support staff positions

Response	Special	Secondary	Primary
Increased number of pupils on roll	84%	56%	19%
Increased need for pastoral, welfare and safeguarding support for pupils	47%	84%	57%
Increased need for SEND support	57%	75%	81%
To reduce teacher and leader workload	15%	41%	16%
To reduce existing support staff workload	7%	39%	14%
Improve efficiency of school operations	25%	36%	17%
Increase in administrative tasks (including reporting and monitoring)	35%	36%	20%
To provide a promotion or development opportunities	10%	7%	2%
A change in budget	1%	2%	1%
Other	11%	1%	6%

Base:All primary, secondary and special leaders in schools where the number of support staff positions have increased in the past three years. (n = 374). Data table reference = “sssnb_increase”.

For leaders who said that the number of support staff positions have decreased in the past three years, we asked what the main reasons were for this decrease.

Figure 28: Main reasons for the decrease in support staff positions

Response	Special	Secondary	Primary
Budgetary pressures	94%	92%	91%
Difficulty filling vacancies	61%	42%	20%
Difficulty retaining staff	51%	21%	9%
A change in budget	24%	22%	30%
Decreased number of pupils on roll	0%	11%	21%
To reinvest in teaching staff costs	2%	18%	9%
Greater use of centralised services in the LA or MAT	6%	16%	10%
Increasing hours of other support staff	0%	3%	3%
Reduced need for pupil support	0%	0%	1%
Other	3%	2%	4%

Base:All primary, secondary and special leaders in schools where the number of support staff positions have decreased in the past three years. (n = 428). Data table reference = “sssnb_decrease”.

Specialist teachers

We asked primary, secondary and special school leaders whether they had used specialist SEND teachers.

Specialist SEND teachers were defined as teachers who have received specialist training in a SEND need and therefore specialise in supporting a particular SEND need. This does not include SENCOs who have not received this specialist training or specialist teaching assistants.

Figure 29: Do schools use specialist SEND teachers?

Response	Special	Secondary	Primary
Yes - Our school employs specialist teachers directly	65%	29%	13%
Yes - We use specialist teachers from the Local Authority	14%	16%	34%
Yes - Our MAT employs specialist teachers that are available for our use	2%	3%	3%
No - This resource is not available to me	11%	43%	49%
No - I have not found them useful	4%	1%	1%
No - I do not know about this role	8%	13%	4%

Base: All primary, secondary and special leaders. (n = 1221). Data table reference = “specialistteachers_use”.

We asked leaders who use specialist teachers which type of specialist SEND teachers they used.

Figure 30: Which specialist SEND teachers are used

Response	Special	Secondary	Primary
General SEND specialist teacher	67%	46%	43%
Autism	42%	43%	56%
Visual, hearing or multi-sensory impairment	31%	39%	52%
Dyslexia	16%	35%	21%
Mental health relating to SEND	25%	27%	17%
ADHD	22%	20%	24%
Other	9%	7%	10%

Base: All primary, secondary and special leaders who use specialist teachers. (n = 603). Data table reference = “specialistteachers_type”.

We asked leaders whose school uses specialist teachers which activities the specialist SEND teachers do at their school.

Figure 31: Activities done by specialist SEND teachers

Response	Special	Secondary	Primary
Providing direct support to pupils (including bespoke equipment or interventions)	45%	69%	50%
Teaching in small groups or in one-to-ones	44%	68%	25%
Provide support set out in pupils’ EHCPs	53%	66%	38%
Classroom observations and/or advising classroom teachers	35%	43%	66%
Whole class teaching - in a specialist unit or specialist support base	59%	34%	10%
Delivering training to school staff	46%	52%	53%
Working with other specialists such as speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, social workers and psychologists	43%	49%	32%
Whole class teaching - in the mainstream school	6%	21%	5%
Other	19%	2%	4%
None of the above	3%	0%	1%

Base: All primary, secondary and special leaders who use specialist teachers. (n = 603). Data table reference = “specialistteachers_work”.

Mentor training

The 2024 to 2025 Initial Teacher Training (ITT) criteria previously stated that ITT providers should provide a minimum of 20 hours of initial general mentor training and 6 hours of annual refresher training. In November 2024, the 20-hours general mentor training time requirement and minimum 6 hours annual refresher training requirement were removed. More information is included in the glossary.

We asked all primary and secondary leaders, how many hours of training, on average, has each of the school-based mentors in their school undertaken between April 2024 (when funding became available for the training) and September 2024 to prepare for this academic year.

The majority of leaders said that their Initial Teacher Training (ITT) mentors attend this training but they did not know the number of hours (70%), whilst 21% said that their school were not hosting ITT trainees this academic year. Of those that were hosting ITT trainees this academic year and knew the number of hours of training, primary leaders reported an average of 9.6 hours, while secondary leaders reported an average of 8.7 hours.

We asked primary and secondary leaders whose schools were hosting ITT trainees whether there were more hours of school-based mentor training scheduled for the remainder of this current academic year.

Figure 32: Whether there are more hours of school-based mentor training scheduled for this current academic year

Response	Percentage
Yes - the training is spread across the academic year, so their training is not yet complete	56%
Yes - no training has been completed yet because it has been difficult to attend the training up to now	0%
Yes - for other reason	2%
No - providers have agreed a reduced period of training time to account for the previous experience of our mentors	7%
No - we did not send mentors for training because they are adequately trained	6%
No - for other reason	3%
Don’t know	24%

Base: All primary and secondary leaders whose schools were hosting ITT trainees. (n = 877). Data table reference = “mentor_hoursbeyond”.

We also asked primary and secondary leaders whose schools were hosting ITT trainees what effects the new requirements for ITT mentor training have had on their school.

Figure 33: Effects of the new requirements for ITT mentor training

Response	Percentage
It has caused problems with delivering teaching when mentors need to go on training courses	50%
It has added a further financial pressure to our budget	40%
It has caused teachers to withdraw from acting as school-based mentors	28%
It has improved the quality of the support we can provide to ITT trainees	26%
It has improved the confidence of our school-based mentors	25%
It has enabled our schools to support a larger number of ITT trainees	7%
It is too early to tell the effects	24%
Other	8%

Base: All primary and secondary leaders whose schools were hosting ITT trainees. (n = 877). Data table reference = “mentor_requirements”.

We asked primary and secondary leaders, whose schools were not hosting ITT trainees, why their school decided not to host ITT trainees this academic year.

Figure 34: Why schools decided not to host ITT trainees this academic year

Response	Primary	Secondary
The cost of covering training and mentoring was not sufficiently covered by the grants available	22%	38%
Training requirements for mentorship disrupt classroom teaching too much	28%	37%
Mentor time of 1.5 hours per week disrupts teaching too much	36%	24%
Competing pressures for mentor time for ECF and ITT	26%	15%
Teachers in my school do not wish to act as mentors	7%	2%
We would have taken a trainee but there is not a demand from ITT trainees in our area	16%	32%
We would be interested in hosting ITT trainees but are not sure how to go about it	5%	0%
Other	35%	28%

Base: Base: All primary and secondary leaders whose schools were not hosting ITT trainees. (n = 177). Data table reference = “mentor_nothost”.

Knife crime

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

Figure 35: Percentage of leaders reporting that their school is currently dealing with knife crime as a safeguarding issue

Response	Primary	Secondary	Special
No	90%	46%	75%
Yes	8%	42%	19%
Prefer not to say	1%	3%	3%
Don’t know	1%	9%	3%

Base: Base: All primary, secondary and special leaders. (n = 1221). Data table reference = “knife_action”.

Across the previous two academic years when we have previously asked this question, the percentage of leaders who said that their school was actively dealing with knife crime as a safeguarding issue were as shown in the figure below:

Figure 36: Percentage of leaders reporting that their school is currently dealing with knife crime as a safeguarding issue: academic year to date and previous 2 academic years

Survey date	Primary	Secondary	Special
2024-12	8%	42%	19%
2024-05	16%	53%	25%
2024-03	11%	47%	25%
2023-12	9%	42%	18%
2023-04	9%	43%	NA
2023-01	7%	47%	NA
2022-09	11%	41%	NA

Base: Base: All primary, secondary and special leaders. (n = 1221). Bases refer to most recent data: see previous reports for base sizes at each data point. Data table reference = “knife_action”.

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 preferred not to say (46%). Among those who provided a number, the average number of incidents was 2.3 per 1000 pupils.

Leaders’ experience of the menopause

We asked female primary, secondary and special school leaders whether they have experienced, or are currently experiencing symptoms of perimenopause or menopause.

The majority of female leaders said that they have experienced or are currently experiencing symptoms of perimenopause or menopause (59%), whilst 36% were not and 5% preferred not to say.

We asked leaders who have experienced menopause or perimenopause symptoms which adjustments, if any, they have used when experiencing symptoms.

Figure 37: Adjustments used when experiencing symptoms of perimenonpause or menopause

Response	Percentage
No adjustments	57%
Mental health support	19%
Ability to control temperature	19%
In school support networks	14%
Staff training on the menopause	12%
Flexible working	5%
Other adjustments	4%
Improved access to toilets	3%
Change to clothing policy	2%
Change to duties in existing job role	1%
Change to a new job role	0%
Don’t know	3%
Prefer not to say	2%

Base: All primary, secondary and special school female leaders who have experienced menopause or perimenopause symptoms. (n = 524). Data table reference = “menopause_adjustments”.

Figure 38: Most useful adjustments when experiencing symptoms of perimonpause or menopause

Response	Percentage
Flexible working	21%
Don’t know	16%
Staff training on the menopause	13%
Ability to control temperature	10%
In school support networks	9%
Mental health support	9%
Improved access to toilets	4%
Change to duties in existing job role	2%
Change to a new job role	1%
Change to clothing policy	0%
None of the above	11%
Other adjustments	2%
Prefer not to say	2%

Base: All primary, secondary and special school female leaders who have experienced menopause or perimenopause symptoms. (n = 524). Data table reference = “menopause_most_useful”.

Pupil behaviour

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

Figure 39: Teachers’ rating of pupil behaviour in their school over the previous week

Phase	Very good	Good	Neither good nor poor	Poor	Very poor	Don’t know	Total
Primary	9%	43%	20%	23%	5%	1%	100%
Secondary	7%	41%	19%	22%	9%	1%	100%
Special	7%	45%	25%	13%	8%	1%	100%

Base: All primary, secondary and special school teachers. (n = 1090). Data table reference = “behaviour_rating”.

About half of primary school teachers (52%), special school teachers (52%) and secondary school teachers (48%) said that the behaviour of pupils at their school over the previous week had been good or very good.

When last asked, in May 2024, a similar proportion of primary school teachers (51%) and a lower proportion of secondary school teachers (40%) and special school teachers (47%) rated behaviour as good or very good.

In December 2023, a higher proportion of primary school teachers (80%), secondary school teachers (58%), and special school teachers (60%) rated behaviour as good or very good.

We also asked leaders how they would rate the behaviour of pupils in their school over the previous week of term.

Figure 40: Leaders’ rating of pupil behaviour in their school over the previous week of term

Phase	Very good	Good	Neither good nor poor	Poor	Very poor	Don’t know	Total
Primary	27%	55%	10%	7%	1%	0%	100%
Secondary	18%	49%	17%	12%	3%	1%	100%
Special	21%	45%	21%	11%	1%	1%	100%

Base: All primary, secondary and special school leaders. (n = 1221). Data table reference = “behaviour_rating”.

The majority of primary school leaders (82%), secondary school leaders (67%), and special school leaders (66%) rated behaviour over the previous week as good or very good.

When last asked, in May 2024, a similar proportion of primary school leaders (81%), and a higher proportion of special school leaders (77%) and a lower proportion of secondary school leaders (56%) rated behaviour as good or very good.

In December 2023, a higher proportion of primary school leaders (95%), secondary school leaders (82%) and special school leaders (84%) rated behaviour as good or very good.

We asked teachers how often their school had been calm and orderly over the previous week of term.

Figure 41: How often teachers felt their school has been calm and orderly over the previous week of term

Phase	Every day	Most days	Some days	Never	Don’t know	Total
Primary	12%	47%	36%	5%	1%	100%
Secondary	14%	39%	35%	10%	1%	100%
Special	10%	39%	42%	7%	1%	100%

Base: All primary, secondary and special school teachers. (n = 1090). Data table reference = “behaviour_calm”.

The majority of primary (59%) and secondary teachers (53%) and about half of special school teachers (49%) said that their school had been calm and orderly every day or most days.

When last asked, in May 2024, a similar proportion of primary school teachers (58%) and special school teachers (47%) and a lower proportion of secondary school teachers (48%) said that their school had been calm and orderly every day or most days.

In December 2023, a higher proportion of primary school teachers (79%) secondary (79%) school teachers and special school teachers (53%) said that their school was calm and orderly either every day or most days.

We also asked leaders how often their school had been calm and orderly over the previous week of term.

Figure 42: How often leaders felt their school has been calm and orderly over the previous week of term

Phase	Every day	Most days	Some days	Never	Don’t know	Total
Primary	38%	46%	14%	1%	0%	100%
Secondary	35%	44%	18%	2%	1%	100%
Special	24%	45%	30%	0%	0%	100%

Base: All primary, secondary and special school leaders. (n = 1221). Data table reference = “behaviour_calm”.

The majority of primary school leaders (85%), secondary school leaders (79%) and special school leaders (69%) said that their school had been calm and orderly every day or most days over the previous week.

When last asked, in May 2024, a similar proportion of primary school leaders (87%), a higher proportion of special school leaders (74%) and a lower proportion of secondary school leaders (72%), said that their school had been calm and orderly either every day or most days.

In December 2023, a higher proportion of primary school leaders (96%), secondary school leaders (89%) and special school leaders (90%) said that their school was calm and orderly either most or all days.

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

Figure 43: Proportion of teachers’ lessons interrupted by pupil misbehaviour over the previous week of term

Phase	All lessons	Most lessons	Some lessons	Rarely	Never	Don’t know	Total
Primary	9%	24%	38%	25%	4%	1%	100%
Secondary	5%	18%	46%	25%	3%	2%	100%
Special	8%	22%	42%	23%	3%	3%	100%

Base: All primary, secondary and special school teachers. (n = 1090). Data table reference = “behaviour_interrupt”.

A minority of primary school teachers (33%) and secondary school teachers (24%) and special school teachers (29%) said that pupil misbehaviour had interrupted all or most of the lessons they had taught in the previous week.

When last asked, in May 2024, a higher proportion of primary school teachers (42%), special school teachers (33%) and secondary school teachers (39%) said that pupil misbehaviour had interrupted all or most of the lessons they had taught in the previous week.

In December 2023, a lower proportion of primary school teachers (26%), a higher proportion of secondary school teachers (27%) and a similar proportion of special school teachers (29%) said that pupil misbehaviour had interrupted all or most of the lessons they had taught in the previous week.

We also asked leaders how frequently pupil misbehaviour had interrupted the lessons they taught in the past week.

Figure 44: Proportion of leaders’ lessons interrupted by pupil misbehaviour over the previous week of term

Phase	All lessons	Most lessons	Some lessons	Rarely	Never	Not applicable	Don’t know	Total
Primary	0%	7%	32%	38%	8%	15%	0%	100%
Secondary	2%	5%	26%	40%	20%	7%	0%	100%
Special	1%	11%	26%	26%	3%	33%	1%	100%

Base: All primary, secondary and special school leaders. (n = 1221). Data table reference = “behaviour_interrupt”.

Very few primary school leaders (7%) and secondary school leaders (7%) and a minority of special school leaders (12%) said that pupil misbehaviour had interrupted all or most of the lessons they had taught in the previous week.

When last asked, in May 2024, a similar proportion of primary (10%) and special school leaders (15%) and a higher proportion of secondary school leaders (14%) said that pupil misbehaviour had interrupted all or most of the lessons they had taught in the previous week.

In December 2023, a similar proportion of primary school leaders (7%) and secondary school leaders (7%) and a lower proportion of special school leaders (5%) said that pupil misbehaviour had interrupted all or most of the lessons they had taught in the previous week.

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).

Mentor training: Mentor training (and relevant prior experience) should provide mentors with the knowledge and skills they need to undertake this role, including knowledge and understanding of the ITT core content framework and its underpinning evidence, and of the ITT curriculum which the trainee will be following. The 2024 to 2025 ITT criteria previously stated that ITT providers should provide a minimum of 20 hours of initial general mentor training and 6 hours of annual refresher training. In November 2024, the 20-hours general mentor training time requirement and minimum 6 hours annual refresher training requirement were removed. Further information can be found here: DfE: ITT Mentor Training Announcement - NASBTT

Mentoring: Mentoring is receiving structured feedback from expert colleagues on a particular approach – using the best available evidence – to provide a structured process for improving the trainee’s practice. From September 2024, all trainee teachers on ITT courses leading to QTS have been entitled to 1.5 hours of mentor support per week during their school placements.