School and college voice: March 2025
Updated 17 July 2025
Applies to England
© Crown copyright 2025
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-and-college-voice-omnibus-surveys-for-2024-to-2025/school-and-college-voice-march-2025
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 March 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 19 March and 26 March 2025. For this wave of surveys, we did not include special school audiences. The respondents were:
| Audience | Responses |
|---|---|
| Primary school leaders | 452 |
| Secondary school leaders | 537 |
| Primary school teachers | 332 |
| Secondary school teachers | 379 |
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 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:
- teaching school hubs
- reach of the National Institute of Teaching (NIoT) research programme
- delayed entry for summer born pupils
- mentoring and coaching
- behaviour
Teaching school hubs
We asked primary and secondary teachers and leaders how much they knew about teaching school hubs before taking the survey.
Figure 1: Teachers’ and leaders’ level of knowledge of teaching school hubs
| Level | Know a lot | Know a little | Only know the name | Not heard of them | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teacher | 8% | 28% | 25% | 39% | 100% |
| Leader | 25% | 48% | 19% | 8% | 100% |
Base: All primary and secondary teachers (n = 711).All primary and secondary leaders (n = 989). Data table reference = “tsh_aware”.
We then asked primary and secondary school leaders who said they knew a little or a lot about teaching school hubs which programmes or services have been accessed at their school since December 2023.
Figure 2: Programmes leaders have personally accessed at their school since December 2023
| Response | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Early Careers Framework (ECF) | 73% |
| National Professional Qualifications (NPQ) | 68% |
| Initial Teacher Training (ITT) | 47% |
| Appropriate Body services (AB) | 36% |
| Signposting to other continuous professional development (CPD) programmes | 35% |
| None of these | 8% |
| Don’t know | 4% |
Base: All primary and secondary leaders who know a little or a lot about teaching school hubs (n = 724). Data table reference = “tsh_access”.
We also asked teachers who said they knew a little or a lot about teaching school hubs which programmes they had personally accessed at their school since December 2023.
Figure 3: Programmes that teachers have personally accessed at their school since December 2023
| Response | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Signposting to other CPD programmes | 28% |
| NPQ | 28% |
| ECF | 22% |
| ITT | 11% |
| Appropriate body (AB) services | 5% |
| None of these | 32% |
| Don’t know | 6% |
Base: All primary and secondary teachers who know a little or a lot about teaching school hubs (n = 260). Data table reference = “tsh_access”.
Finally, we asked primary and secondary teachers and leaders whose school had accessed programmes or services through the teaching school hub how satisfied or dissatisfied they were with the service they received from the teaching school hub.
Figure 4: Teacher and leader satisfaction with service received from teaching school hubs
| Level | Very satisfied | Satisfied | Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | Dissatisfied | Very dissatisfied | Varies too much to say | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teacher | 15% | 67% | 16% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 100% |
| Leader | 22% | 54% | 21% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 100% |
Base: Primary and secondary teachers (n = 154) and primary and secondary leaders (n = 615) whose school has accessed programmes or services through a teaching school hub. Data has been rebased to exclude “Prefer not to say” responses. Data table reference = “tsh_satisfaction”.
Reach of the National Institute of Teaching research programme
We asked primary and secondary teachers and leaders if they had heard of the National Institute of Teaching before taking the survey.
Figure 5: Teacher and leader knowledge of National Institute of Teaching
| Level | Know a lot about it | Know a little about it | Only know the name | Never heard of it | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teacher | 2% | 19% | 34% | 44% | 1% | 100% |
| Leader | 7% | 33% | 34% | 26% | 0% | 100% |
Base: All primary and secondary teachers (n = 711). All primary and secondary leaders (n = 989). Data table reference = “niot_aware”.
We asked those who said they had at least heard of the National Institute of Teaching what they thought its main roles are.
Figure 6: What teachers and leaders think are the main roles of the National Institute of Teaching
| Response | Teacher | Leader |
|---|---|---|
| Conduct research around professional development | 47% | 44% |
| Deliver ITT | 45% | 46% |
| Deliver NPQs | 42% | 44% |
| Deliver the ECF | 39% | 43% |
| Communicate new research | 32% | 31% |
| Deliver National Leaders of Education (NLE) training | 27% | 27% |
| Lobbying | 6% | 6% |
| Other | 1% | 0% |
| Don’t know | 28% | 30% |
Base: Primary and secondary teachers (n = 387) and primary and secondary leaders (n = 725) who have heard of, or know about, the National Institute of Teaching. Data table reference = “niot_roles”.
Finally, we asked primary and secondary teachers and leaders who thought conducting and communicating research is one of the main roles of the National Institute of Teaching, if since September 2024, they had engaged with any of the research produced by the National Institute of Teaching. A minority of primary (13%) and secondary (16%) school teachers, and a minority of primary (18%) and secondary (33%) school leaders said they had engaged with the research.
Delayed entry for summer born pupils
We asked primary leaders whose school has a reception class if, in the past 3 academic years, their school had received any requests from parents for delayed admission to reception for summer born pupils. The majority (57%) said they had and 35% said they had not. The remaining 8% said that they did not know.
We asked primary leaders who said that their school had received delayed admission requests approximately how many requests for summer born pupils they had received in the past 3 years.The majority of leaders (87%) said that between 1 and 5 requests had been received.
We also asked how requests for delayed admission to reception for summer born pupils are decided. Around half (52%) said that the school decides whether or not to approve the request and a minority (21%) said that they defer the decision to the local authority. The remaining 28% said that they did not know.
For those whose school decides whether to approve delayed admission requests for summer born pupils, we asked what best describes their schools’ current policy or guidance for handling these requests.
Figure 7: Primary schools’ current policy or guidance for approving delayed admission requests for summer born pupils’
| Response | Percentage |
|---|---|
| We ask parents to make a case for delayed admission and make decisions on a case-by-case basis | 85% |
| We do not agree any requests | 5% |
| We agree all requests | 4% |
| Not applicable - we do not have a school policy or guidance | 3% |
| Don’t know | 3% |
Base: Primary leaders whose school decides whether to approve delayed admission requests for summer born pupils. (n = 217). Data table reference = “delayedadmission_handle_reception”.
We asked secondary school leaders whose school has a year 7 cohort if, in the past 3 academic years, their school had received any requests from parents for delayed admission to year 7 for summer born pupils who were educated out-of-year group at primary school. A minority (13%) said they had and 50% said they had not. The remaining 37% said that they did not know.
We asked secondary leaders who said that their school had received delayed admission requests for summer born pupils approximately how many requests they had received in the past 3 years. The majority of leaders (85%) said that between 1 and 5 requests had been received.
We also asked how requests are decided for delayed admission to year 7 for summer born pupils who were educated out-of-year group at primary school. A minority (31%) said that the school decides whether or not to approve the request and a minority (13%) said that they defer the decision to the local authority. The remaining 56% said that they did not know.
For those whose school decides whether to approve delayed admission requests for summer born pupils, we asked what best describes their schools’ current policy or guidance for handling these requests.
Figure 8: Secondary schools’ current policy or guidance for approving delayed admission requests for summer born pupils
| Response | Percentage |
|---|---|
| We ask parents to make a case for delayed admission, and make decisions on a case-by-case basis | 55% |
| We do not agree any requests | 15% |
| Not applicable - we do not have a school policy or guidance | 11% |
| We agree all requests | 8% |
| Don’t know | 11% |
Base: All secondary leaders whose school decides whether to approve delayed admission requests for summer born pupils. (n = 177). Data table reference = “delayedadmission_handle_y7”.
Mentoring and coaching
We asked primary and secondary teachers and leaders whether they had ever received regular mentoring and coaching, while working in state education, either arranged formally as part of a scheme or informally by themselves.
Figure 9: Whether teachers and leaders have ever received regular mentoring or coaching
| Response | Teacher | Leader |
|---|---|---|
| Currently has a mentor or coach | 17% | 22% |
| Had a mentor or coach previously | 37% | 42% |
| Has never had a mentor or coach | 45% | 36% |
| Don’t know | 1% | 0% |
Base: All primary and secondary teachers (n = 711). All primary and secondary leaders (n = 989). Data table reference = “mentorcoach_receive”.
We then asked primary and secondary teachers and leaders who said they had received mentoring or coaching how this was arranged.
Figure 10: How mentoring and coaching was arranged for teachers and leaders
| Response | Teacher | Leader |
|---|---|---|
| Through a scheme set up by my school | 57% | 40% |
| Through a scheme set up by DfE | 19% | 15% |
| I arranged it informally myself | 14% | 16% |
| Through a scheme set up by my trust | 9% | 19% |
| Through a scheme set up by another organisation | 6% | 19% |
| Through my local authority | 2% | 7% |
| Other | 7% | 5% |
| Don’t know | 3% | 1% |
Base: All primary and secondary teachers who currently have, or have had, mentoring or coaching (n = 367). All primary and secondary leaders who currently have, or have had, mentoring or coaching (n = 643). Data table reference = “mentorcoach_receivearrange”.
We asked primary and secondary teachers and leaders how interested they were, if at all, in having, or continuing to have, a mentor or coach in the next 3 years.
Figure 11: Teacher and leader interest in having, or continuing to have, a mentor or coach in the next 3 years
| Level | Very interested | Fairly interested | Not very interested | Not at all interested | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teacher | 16% | 31% | 31% | 20% | 2% | 100% |
| Leader | 31% | 38% | 19% | 11% | 2% | 100% |
Base: All primary and secondary teachers (n = 711) and all primary and secondary leaders (n = 989). Data table reference = “mentorcoach_receiveinterest”.
We asked all primary and secondary teachers how interested, if at all, they would be in progressing to a school leadership position in the next 10 years.
Figure 12: Primary and secondary school teacher interest in progressing to leadership position in the next 10 years
| Phase | Very interested | Fairly interested | Not very interested | Not at all interested | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | 23% | 25% | 19% | 32% | 1% | 100% |
| Secondary | 19% | 24% | 20% | 35% | 1% | 100% |
Base: All primary and secondary teachers (n = 711). Data table reference = “leaderprogression_interest”.
We asked leaders who were interested in receiving mentoring or coaching, as well as teachers who were interested in both receiving mentoring or coaching and progressing into leadership roles, what leadership skills they would like a mentor or coach to support them with.
Figure 13: Skills teachers and leaders would like a mentor or coach to support them with
| Response | Teacher | Leader |
|---|---|---|
| Curriculum and assessment - ensuring a broad, structured and coherent curriculum | 56% | 30% |
| Ensuring that teaching in your school is high quality | 55% | 43% |
| Special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) | 52% | 35% |
| Organisational management | 51% | 45% |
| Creating a positive school culture | 49% | 39% |
| Continuous school improvement | 46% | 56% |
| Professional development for staff | 46% | 39% |
| Pupil behaviour management and approaches | 44% | 30% |
| Maintaining relationships beyond the school with parents, carers and the local community, for example | 35% | 31% |
| Governance and accountability | 32% | 30% |
| None of the above | 1% | 3% |
| Don’t know | 1% | 2% |
Base: Primary and secondary teachers who are both interested in receiving mentoring or coaching and progressing into leadership roles (n = 174), and primary and secondary leaders who are interested in receiving mentoring or coaching (n = 649). Data table reference = “mentorcoach_supportarea”.
We also asked all primary and secondary school teachers and leaders if, during their career in the state education sector, they had ever provided mentoring or coaching.
Figure 14: Whether teachers and leaders have provided mentoring or coaching in their career in the state education sector
| Level | Currently a mentor or coach | Was a mentor or coach previously | Has never been a mentor or coach | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teacher | 24% | 37% | 38% | 0% | 100% |
| Leader | 36% | 42% | 22% | 0% | 100% |
Base: All primary and secondary teachers (n = 711). All primary and secondary leaders (n = 989). Data table reference = “mentorcoach_provide”.
We then asked primary and secondary teachers and leaders how interested they are in continuing to be, or becoming, a mentor or coach over the next 3 years.
Figure 15: Teachers’ and leaders’ interest in continuing as, or becoming, a mentor or coach in the next 3 years
| Level | Very interested | Fairly interested | Not very interested | Not at all interested | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teacher | 25% | 41% | 18% | 15% | 2% | 100% |
| Leader | 36% | 40% | 18% | 5% | 2% | 100% |
Base: All primary and secondary teachers (n = 711), and primary and secondary leaders (n = 989). Data table reference = “mentorcoach_provideinterest”.
Finally, we asked those who said they were not interested in being a mentor or coach over the next 3 years why this was.
Figure 16: Reasons why teachers and leaders are not interested in becoming, or continuing to be, a mentor or coach in the next 3 years
| Response | Teacher | Leader |
|---|---|---|
| Concern about capacity, high workload or stress | 83% | 80% |
| Insufficient recognition for the additional work | 51% | 17% |
| It will reduce my time in the classroom | 37% | 11% |
| Lack of support or training | 22% | 10% |
| It will reduce my time for leadership responsibilities | 12% | 54% |
| Do not feel experienced enough | 11% | 7% |
| It is not appropriate for my role | 4% | 6% |
| Other | 14% | 11% |
| Don’t know | 1% | 0% |
Base: Primary and secondary teachers who are not interested in providing mentoring over the next 3 years (n = 238), and primary and secondary leaders who are not interested in providing mentoring over the next 3 years (n = 239). Data table reference = “mentorcoach_providereasons”.
Behaviour
We asked primary and secondary teachers how good or poor pupil behaviour was over the previous week of term.
Figure 17: Teacher’s ratings of pupil behaviour over the previous week of term
| Phase | Very good | Good | Neither good nor poor | Poor | Very poor | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | 13% | 48% | 15% | 17% | 7% | 1% | 100% |
| Secondary | 8% | 41% | 22% | 20% | 8% | 0% | 100% |
Base: All primary and secondary teachers (n = 711). Data table reference = “behaviour_rating”.
A majority of primary school teachers (61%) and about half of secondary school teachers (49%) said that the behaviour of pupils at their school over the previous week had been good or very good.
When last asked, in December 2024, a lower proportion of primary school teachers (52%) and a similar proportion of secondary school teachers (48%) rated behaviour as good or very good.
In March 2024, a higher proportion of primary school teachers (66%), and a lower proportion of secondary school teachers (44%), rated behaviour as good or very good.
We also asked primary and secondary leaders how good or poor pupil behaviour was over the previous week of term.
Figure 18: Leader’s ratings of pupil behaviour over the previous week of term
| Phase | Very good | Good | Neither good nor poor | Poor | Very poor | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | 28% | 59% | 7% | 5% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Secondary | 17% | 54% | 18% | 8% | 3% | 0% | 100% |
Base: All primary and secondary leaders (n = 989). Data table reference = “behaviour_rating”.
The majority of primary school leaders (87%), and secondary school leaders (71%), rated behaviour over the previous week as good or very good.
When last asked, in December 2024, a lower proportion of primary school leaders (82%) and secondary school leaders (67%) rated behaviour as good or very good.
In March 2024, a higher proportion of primary school leaders (90%), and a lower proportion of secondary school leaders (65%), rated behaviour as good or very good.
We then asked primary and secondary school teachers how often their school had been calm and orderly over the previous week of term.
Figure 19: 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 | 13% | 48% | 35% | 3% | 1% | 100% |
| Secondary | 15% | 37% | 39% | 9% | 1% | 100% |
Base: All primary and secondary teachers (n = 711). Data table reference = “behaviour_calm”.
The majority of primary (61%) and secondary teachers (52%) said that their school had been calm and orderly every day or most days.
When last asked, in December 2024, a similar proportion of primary school teachers (59%) and secondary school teachers (53%) said that their school had been calm and orderly every day or most days.
In March 2024, a higher proportion of primary school teachers (66%) and a similar proportion of secondary school teachers (53%) said that their school was calm and orderly either every day or most days.
We also asked primary and secondary school leaders how often their school had been calm and orderly over the previous week of term.
Figure 20: 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 | 46% | 42% | 11% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Secondary | 34% | 49% | 16% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
Base: All primary and secondary leaders (n = 989). Data table reference = “behaviour_calm”.
The majority of primary school leaders (88%) and secondary school leaders (83%) said that their school had been calm and orderly every day or most days over the previous week.
When last asked, in December 2024, a lower proportion of primary school leaders (85%) and secondary school leaders (79%), said that their school had been calm and orderly either every day or most days.
In March 2024, a higher proportion of primary school leaders (90%), and a similar proportion of secondary school leaders (82%), said that their school was calm and orderly either most or all days.
We finally asked primary and secondary school teachers in how many lessons in the previous week of term did pupil misbehaviour stop or interrupt teaching and learning.
Figure 21: 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 | NA | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | 7% | 30% | 34% | 23% | 3% | 0% | 2% | 100% |
| Secondary | 4% | 19% | 45% | 26% | 5% | 0% | 1% | 100% |
Base: All primary and secondary teachers (n = 711). Data table reference = “behaviour_interrupt”.
A minority of primary school teachers (37%) and secondary school teachers (22%) said that pupil misbehaviour had interrupted all or most of the lessons they had taught in the previous week.
When last asked, in December 2024, a lower proportion of primary school teachers (33%) and a similar proportion of secondary school teachers (23%) said that pupil misbehaviour had interrupted all or most of the lessons they had taught in the previous week.
In March 2024, a similar proportion of primary school teachers (38%) and a higher proportion of secondary school teachers (37%) said that pupil misbehaviour had interrupted all or most of the lessons they had taught in the previous week.
We also asked primary and secondary school leaders in how many lessons in the previous week of term did pupil misbehaviour stop or interrupt teaching and learning.
Figure 22: 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 | 2% | 8% | 27% | 35% | 7% | 21% | 0% | 100% |
| Secondary | 2% | 6% | 25% | 40% | 20% | 7% | 0% | 100% |
Base: All primary and secondary leaders (n = 989). Data table reference = “behaviour_interrupt”.
Very few primary school leaders (8%) and secondary school leaders (10%) said that pupil misbehaviour had interrupted all or most of the lessons they had taught in the previous week.
When last asked, in December 2024, a similar proportion of primary (7%) and a lower proportion of secondary school leaders (7%) said that pupil misbehaviour had interrupted all or most of the lessons they had taught in the previous week.
In March 2024, a higher proportion of primary school leaders (12%) and a similar proportion of secondary school leaders (9%) 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).