School and college voice: May 2025
Updated 25 September 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-may-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 May 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 3 June and 11 June. The respondents were:
| Audience | Responses |
|---|---|
| Primary school leaders | 474 |
| Secondary school leaders | 551 |
| Primary school teachers | 489 |
| Secondary school teachers | 521 |
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, however this audience did not participate in this wave.
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:
- swimming and water safety
- early career framework
- support staff training
- teacher shortages and recruitment decisions
- mobile phones policies
- democracy education
- teacher support to manage challenging situations
- bullying
- behaviour
- impacts of misbehaviour
Swimming and water safety
Almost all (94%) primary school leaders said their school offers swimming and water safety lessons to their pupils.
We asked them what barriers their school faces, if any, to teaching swimming and water safety lessons.
Figure 1: Barriers schools face to teaching swimming and water safety lessons
| Response | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Financial limitations | 66% |
| Organisational challenges | 48% |
| Some parents are hesitant for their child to take part | 36% |
| Difficulty having enough time in the curriculum | 36% |
| Some pupils are hesitant to take part | 28% |
| Lack of access to a pool space | 27% |
| Staff do not have the relevant training | 19% |
| Insufficient staff-to-student ratio | 17% |
| Class management challenges | 10% |
| Other | 6% |
| No barriers | 13% |
Base: All primary school leaders (n = 474). Data table reference = “swimming_barriers”. ‘Don’t know’ is not charted.
We asked primary school teachers whether they personally teach or support the delivery of swimming and water safety lessons. A very small minority (6%) said that they teach swimming and water safety lessons and 20% said that they support the delivery of the lessons.
We asked the 20% of teachers that support the delivery of swimming and water safety lessons, but do not personally teach the lessons, how confident they felt to do so.
Figure 2: Teacher confidence in supporting the delivery of swimming and water safety lessons
| Audience | Very confident | Fairly confident | Not very confident | Not confident at all | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teacher | 37% | 49% | 8% | 4% | 1% | 100% |
Base: Primary school teachers who support (but do not teach) swimming lessons. (n = 100). Data table reference = “swimming_confidence_support”.
Early career framework
We asked primary and secondary teachers and leaders if, prior to the survey, they were aware of upcoming changes to the programme of training and support for Early Career Teachers.
Figure 3: Teacher and leader awareness of upcoming changes to the programme of training and support for Early Career Teachers
| Level | Yes - I know a lot about these changes | Yes - I know a little about these changes | Yes - I have only heard of these changes | No - I have never heard of these changes | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teacher | 4% | 14% | 18% | 64% | 100% |
| Leader | 11% | 37% | 27% | 24% | 100% |
Base: Primary and secondary teachers (n = 1010) and primary and secondary leaders (n = 1025). Data table reference = “ecf_awareness”.
We explained that the changes to the programme will include updates to the evidence underpinning framework areas including SEND, high quality oral language (sometimes known as oracy), early cognitive development, and evidence literacy. After making them aware of these changes, we asked teachers and leaders how they felt about these changes to the programme of training and support for Early Career Teachers.
Figure 4: How teachers and leaders feel about these changes to the programme
| Level | Very positive | Positive | Neither positive nor negative | Negative | Very negative | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teacher | 9% | 45% | 32% | 1% | 0% | 13% | 100% |
| Leader | 14% | 52% | 26% | 1% | 0% | 7% | 100% |
Base: Primary and secondary teachers (n = 1010) and primary and secondary leaders (n = 1025). Data table reference = “ecf_ittecf”.
We explained that the changes will include streamlining the training for new mentors on DfE funded training programmes from two years to one year, and training providers will provide more detailed resources for mentors. After making them aware of these changes, we asked teachers and leaders how they felt about the changes to training for new mentors.
Figure 5: How teachers and leaders feel about these changes to training for new mentors
| Level | Very positive | Positive | Neither positive nor negative | Negative | Very negative | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teacher | 13% | 43% | 29% | 4% | 1% | 9% | 100% |
| Leader | 22% | 53% | 17% | 3% | 0% | 4% | 100% |
Base: Primary and secondary teachers (n = 1010) and primary and secondary leaders (n = 1025). Data table reference = “ecf_mentors”.
Support staff training
We asked primary and secondary leaders which non-teaching staff roles are employed at their school.
Figure 6: Non-teaching staff roles employed at leaders’ school
| Response | Primary | Secondary |
|---|---|---|
| Administrative staff | 97% | 99% |
| Teaching assistants | 99% | 98% |
| Technicians | 32% | 99% |
| Site staff | 92% | 97% |
| Pastoral, health and welfare staff | 59% | 95% |
| Midday supervisors/assistants | 88% | 48% |
| School business professionals | 53% | 74% |
| Catering staff | 60% | 73% |
| Other non-teaching staff | 9% | 38% |
| Don’t know | 0% | 0% |
Base: Primary and secondary leaders (n = 1025). Data table reference = “supportstaff_nonteachingroles”.
We asked leaders which of those non-teaching staff employed at their school have received professional development training this academic year.
Figure 7: Which non-teaching staff have received professional development training this academic year
| Response | Primary | Secondary |
|---|---|---|
| Teaching assistants | 96% | 88% |
| Administrative staff | 78% | 66% |
| Midday supervisors/assistants | 65% | 40% |
| Pastoral, health and welfare staff | 85% | 85% |
| Site staff (cleaners, caretakers etc.) | 54% | 49% |
| Catering staff | 32% | 34% |
| School business professionals | 72% | 66% |
| Technicians (science technicians, IT technicians, etc.) | 28% | 64% |
| Other non-teaching staff | 46% | 50% |
| None of these | 0% | 1% |
| Don’t know | 2% | 9% |
Base: Leaders responded based on the roles they had employed at their school. (n = 1024). Data table reference = “supportstaff_trainingprovide”.
We also asked primary and secondary school leaders, which factors, if any, have limited their school’s ability to provide professional development training to non-teaching staff this academic year.
Figure 8: Factors which have limited school’s ability to provide professional development training
| Response | Primary | Secondary |
|---|---|---|
| Contracted working hours make scheduling training difficult | 67% | 58% |
| Insufficient funding for external training | 62% | 50% |
| Insufficient funding for internal training | 39% | 31% |
| Staff do not have time to develop in-house training | 27% | 29% |
| Lack of suitable external training options | 21% | 28% |
| Fixed-term contracts restrict time available for training | 21% | 19% |
| Low uptake for training due to limited career progression opportunities | 9% | 18% |
| Low staff interest in training | 7% | 17% |
| Unable to develop in-house training due to lack of expertise | 4% | 12% |
| Other | 5% | 4% |
| Not applicable - there are not any barriers | 10% | 15% |
Base: Primary and secondary leaders (n = 1025). Data table reference = “supportstaff_barrierstraining”.
We asked primary and secondary school leaders how non-teaching staff at their school have progressed in their careers this academic year.
Figure 9: How non-teaching staff have progressed in their careers this academic year
| Response | Primary | Secondary |
|---|---|---|
| Promotion in a directly related role | 41% | 59% |
| Lateral move to a different job area | 10% | 40% |
| Lateral move to similar job area | 10% | 35% |
| Progressed into formal training | 22% | 32% |
| Other | 4% | 2% |
| Don’t know | 5% | 15% |
| No career progression | 40% | 10% |
Base: Primary and secondary leaders (n = 1025). Data table reference = “supportstaff_progression”.
Finally, we asked primary and secondary school leaders what barriers their school has experienced in providing career progression pathways for non-teaching staff this academic year.
Figure 10: Barriers leaders have experienced in providing career progression pathways for non-teaching staff this academic year
| Response | Primary | Secondary |
|---|---|---|
| Insufficient funding to offer higher-paid positions | 72% | 65% |
| School size or structure limits opportunities for progression | 54% | 48% |
| Low interest for career progression | 22% | 12% |
| Non-teaching staff lack sufficient skills or confidence to progress career | 18% | 14% |
| High non-teaching staff turnover | 5% | 10% |
| Don’t know | 3% | 11% |
| No limiting factors | 6% | 7% |
Base: Primary and secondary leaders (n = 1025). Data table reference = “supportstaff_barriersprogression”.
Teacher shortages and recruitment decisions
We asked all secondary school leaders which subjects their school has found difficult to recruit permanent teachers for this academic year.
Figure 11: Top 5 subjects that schools have found difficult to recruit permanent teachers for this academic year
| Response | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Mathematics | 45% |
| Physics | 45% |
| Chemistry | 40% |
| Biology | 31% |
| Design and technology | 28% |
| There are not any barriers | 14% |
Base: Secondary school leaders (n = 551). Data table reference = “teachershortage_subject”. The five subjects with the highest proportion of responses and ‘There are not any barriers’ are charted.
We also asked how their school has responded to recruitment difficulties this academic year.
Figure 12: How schools have responded to recruitment difficulties this academic year
| Response | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Readvertised vacancies | 91% |
| Used supply teachers | 56% |
| Used non-specialist teachers | 50% |
| Reduced subject provision | 33% |
| Increased class sizes | 28% |
| Hired less qualified applicants | 28% |
| Used teaching assistants to cover classes | 9% |
| We have not taken any action | 0% |
| Other | 8% |
| Don’t know | 0% |
Base: All leaders whose school has found it difficult to recruit a permanent teacher in at least one subject (n = 476). Data table reference = “teachershortage_recruitmentdifficulties”.
We asked leaders which subjects, if any, their school had stopped offering or reduced hours of due to any recent or longer-term difficulty in recruiting permanent teachers. The majority (60%) said they had not done that for any subject. The most common subjects where hours had been reduced or had stopped offering were design and technology (12%), modern foreign languages (11%), and computing (10%).
Finally, we asked leaders which subjects, if any, their school had stopped offering or reduced hours of due to a lack of pupil demand. The majority (60%) said they had not done that for any subject. The most common subjects where hours had been reduced or had stopped offering were modern foreign languages (15%), music (12%), and drama (10%).
Mobile phones policies
We asked all teachers and leaders about how pupils are allowed to use mobile phones whilst at school.
The most common policy reported by primary school teachers (75%) and leaders (80%) was that pupils hand in their mobile phones or store them in a secure location that is inaccessible during the school day. The next most common policy was that pupils are not permitted to bring mobile phones onto school grounds, according to teachers (15%) and leaders (13%).
Secondary school teachers (72%) and leaders (75%) most commonly said that pupils are allowed to bring mobile phones to school, but they must be kept out of sight and are not permitted for use. The next most common policy was that pupils may only use their phones during lessons when explicitly allowed by a teacher, according to teachers (10%), whilst leaders (9%) said it was that pupils hand in their phones or store them in a secure location during the school day.
We asked teachers and leaders whose school has a policy on rules for mobile phones, how often pupils have followed the school’s policy on mobile phones in the past week of term.
Figure 13: How often teachers and leaders said pupils have followed the school’s policy on mobile phones in the past week of term
| Audience | All of the time | Most of the time | Some of the time | Rarely | Never | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary teachers | 69% | 12% | 2% | 0% | 2% | 15% | 100% |
| Secondary teachers | 15% | 51% | 21% | 11% | 1% | 1% | 100% |
| Primary leaders | 82% | 16% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 100% |
| Secondary leaders | 13% | 69% | 14% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
Base: Primary and secondary school teachers whose school has a policy on rules for mobile phones (n = 981) and primary and secondary school leaders whose school has a policy on rules for mobile phones (n = 1010). Data table reference = “phones_followrules”.
We asked primary and secondary teachers and leaders whether they had heard of the ‘Mobile Phones in Schools’ guidance.
Figure 14: Teacher and leader awareness of the ‘Mobile Phones in Schools’ guidance
| Audience | Yes, and I’m familiar with the detail of the guidance | Yes, and I know a bit about the guidance | Yes, I’m aware of it in name only | No, I’ve not heard of this guidance | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary teachers | 5% | 23% | 25% | 46% | 1% | 100% |
| Secondary teachers | 14% | 32% | 27% | 26% | 0% | 100% |
| Primary leaders | 21% | 42% | 20% | 16% | 0% | 100% |
| Secondary leaders | 51% | 34% | 11% | 4% | 0% | 100% |
Base: Primary and secondary teachers (n = 1010) and primary and secondary school leaders (n = 1025). Data table reference = “phones_guidance”.
Finally, we asked teachers and leaders who know at least a bit about or are familiar with the ‘Mobile Phones in Schools’ guidance how useful they have found it.
Figure 15: How useful teachers and leaders have found the ‘Mobile Phones in Schools’ guidance
| Audience | Very useful | Fairly useful | Not very useful | Not useful at all | Don’t know | Not applicable - I/we have not used the guidance | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary teachers | 8% | 46% | 12% | 3% | 3% | 29% | 100% |
| Secondary teachers | 5% | 37% | 24% | 11% | 5% | 18% | 100% |
| Primary leaders | 5% | 45% | 19% | 6% | 5% | 19% | 100% |
| Secondary leaders | 7% | 44% | 30% | 13% | 2% | 4% | 100% |
Base: Primary and secondary school teachers who know a bit about or are familiar with the ‘Mobile Phones in Schools’ guidance in detail (n = 387) and primary and secondary school leaders who know a bit about or are familiar with the ‘Mobile Phones in Schools’ guidance in detail (n = 773). Data table reference = “phones_guidanceuseful”.
Democracy education
The majority of secondary school teachers had personally taught about democracy as part of their lessons or through other formats since September 2024 (64%). We asked them how they teach about democracy.
Figure 16: How teachers teach about democracy
| Response | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Through curriculum PSHE/RSHE lessons | 66% |
| Through other curriculum subjects | 45% |
| Having discussions with pupils outside of lessons on topical political issues | 39% |
| Running relevant extracurricular activities in my school | 21% |
| Through curriculum Citizenship lessons | 18% |
| Organising or attending events or field trips | 14% |
| Other | 13% |
Base: Secondary school teachers who have taught their pupils about democracy (n = 326). Data table reference = “democracy_teachhow”.
Finally, we asked how confident they felt about teaching their pupils about democracy.
Figure 17: Teachers’ confidence teaching about democracy
| Audience | Very confident | Fairly confident | Not very confident | Not confident at all | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teacher | 34% | 57% | 9% | 1% | 100% |
Base: Secondary school teachers who have taught their pupils about democracy (n = 326). Data table reference = “democracy_teachconfident”.
Teacher support to manage challenging situations
We asked all teachers what support is available to them to help manage or de-escalate a challenging situation while it is happening in their classroom.
Figure 18: Support available to teachers to help manage or de-escalate a challenging situation happening in their classroom
| Response | Primary | Secondary |
|---|---|---|
| On-call or duty staff | 6% | 83% |
| Classroom support staff | 80% | 36% |
| Headteacher or Deputy Headteacher(s) | 76% | 26% |
| Special Educational Needs Coordinator | 60% | 35% |
| Pastoral support team | 20% | 55% |
| Designated safeguarding lead | 45% | 34% |
| Designated behaviour lead | 13% | 25% |
| School counsellor or mental health support staff | 18% | 21% |
| Trauma-informed practitioners | 13% | 6% |
| Other | 6% | 6% |
| No support is available | 5% | 4% |
Base: Primary and secondary school teachers (n = 1010). Data table reference = “challengingsituation_who”. ‘Don’t know’ is not charted.
We also asked what support is available to teachers from their school or Multi Academy Trust after a challenging situation has occurred in their classroom.
Figure 19: Support available to teachers after a challenging situation has occurred in their classroom
| Response | Primary | Secondary |
|---|---|---|
| Headteacher or Deputy Headteacher(s) | 59% | 24% |
| Informal peer support from colleagues | 57% | 58% |
| Special Educational Needs Coordinator | 47% | 23% |
| Designated safeguarding lead | 34% | 28% |
| Designated behaviour lead | 10% | 18% |
| School counsellor or mental health support staff | 14% | 18% |
| External support services | 14% | 18% |
| Human Resources | 5% | 11% |
| Supervision or reflective practice sessions | 5% | 7% |
| Professional development groups or networks | 3% | 5% |
| Other | 4% | 3% |
| Not applicable | 14% | 16% |
| Don’t know | 5% | 13% |
Base: Primary and secondary school teachers (n = 1010). Data table reference = “challengingsituation_prevent”.
Bullying
We asked primary and secondary school teachers how well their school acts to prevent bullying from taking place and how well their school deals with incidents of bullying.
Figure 20: How well bullying is prevented and incidents dealt with at school
| Statement | Very well | Fairly well | Not very well | Not very well at all | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prevents bullying | 37% | 54% | 6% | 1% | 2% | 100% |
| Deals with incidents | 41% | 50% | 6% | 1% | 3% | 100% |
Base: Primary and secondary school teachers (n = 1010). Data table reference = “bullying_prevent”, “bullying_incidents”.
Behaviour
We asked primary and secondary teachers how good or poor pupil behaviour was over the previous week of term.
Figure 21: 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 | 14% | 55% | 16% | 12% | 3% | 1% | 100% |
| Secondary | 8% | 52% | 23% | 14% | 2% | 0% | 100% |
Base: Primary and secondary school teachers (n = 1010). Data table reference = “behaviour_rating”.
The majority of primary school teachers (69%) and secondary school teachers (60%) said that the behaviour of pupils at their school over the previous week had been good or very good.
When last asked, in March 2025, a lower proportion of primary school teachers (61%) and secondary school teachers (49%) rated behaviour as good or very good.
In May 2024, a lower proportion of primary school teachers (51%), and a lower proportion of secondary school teachers (40%), 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 22: 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 | 37% | 55% | 5% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 100% |
| Secondary | 27% | 54% | 11% | 7% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
Base: Primary and secondary school leaders (n = 1025). Data table reference = “behaviour_rating”.
The majority of primary school leaders (91%), and secondary school leaders (81%), rated behaviour over the previous week as good or very good.
When last asked, in March 2025, a lower proportion of primary school leaders (87%) and secondary school leaders (71%) rated behaviour as good or very good.
In May 2024, a lower proportion of primary school leaders (81%) and secondary school leaders (56%) 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 23: How often teachers felt their school had been calm and orderly over the previous week of term
| Phase | Every day | Most days | Some days | Never | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | 19% | 47% | 27% | 6% | 1% | 100% |
| Secondary | 16% | 44% | 33% | 7% | 0% | 100% |
Base: Primary and secondary school teachers (n = 1010). Data table reference = “behaviour_calm”.
The majority of primary (66%) and secondary school teachers (60%) said that their school had been calm and orderly every day or most days.
When last asked, in March 2025, a similar proportion of primary school teachers (61%) and a lower proportion of secondary school teachers (52%) said that their school had been calm and orderly every day or most days.
In May 2024, a lower proportion of primary school teachers (58%) and secondary school teachers (48%) 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 24: How often leaders felt their school had been calm and orderly over the previous week of term
| Phase | Every day | Most days | Some days | Never | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | 46% | 44% | 9% | 0% | 1% | 100% |
| Secondary | 43% | 41% | 15% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
Base: Primary and secondary school leaders (n = 1025). Data table reference = “behaviour_calm”.
The majority of primary school leaders (90%) and secondary school leaders (84%) said that their school had been calm and orderly every day or most days over the previous week.
When last asked, in March 2025, a similar proportion of primary school leaders (88%) and secondary school leaders (83%), said that their school had been calm and orderly either every day or most days.
In May 2024, a similar proportion of primary school leaders (87%) and a lower proportion of secondary school leaders (72%) said that their school was calm and orderly either most or all days.
Impacts of misbehaviour
We asked primary and secondary school teachers how many lessons pupil misbehaviour had stopped or interrupted teaching and learning in the previous week of term.
Figure 25: Proportion of teachers’ lessons interrupted by pupil misbehaviour over the previous week of term
| Phase | All lessons | Most lessons | Some lessons | Rarely | Never | Not applicable - I have not taught any lessons | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | 14% | 27% | 34% | 20% | 3% | 2% | 0% | 100% |
| Secondary | 6% | 21% | 44% | 24% | 3% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
Base: Primary and secondary school teachers (n = 1010). Data table reference = “misbehave_interrupt”.
A minority of primary school teachers (41%) and secondary school teachers (28%) said that pupil misbehaviour had interrupted all or most of the lessons they had taught in the previous week.
When last asked, in March 2025, a lower proportion of primary school teachers (37%) and secondary school teachers (23%) said that pupil misbehaviour had interrupted all or most of the lessons they had taught in the previous week.
In May 2024, a similar proportion of primary school teachers (42%), a higher proportion of secondary school teachers (39%) 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 how many lessons pupil misbehaviour had stopped or interrupted teaching and learning in the previous week of term.
Figure 26: 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 - I have not taught any lessons | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | 3% | 9% | 27% | 30% | 6% | 24% | 100% |
| Secondary | 2% | 4% | 24% | 40% | 18% | 11% | 100% |
Base: Primary and secondary school leaders (n = 1025). Data table reference = “misbehave_interrupt”.
A minority primary school leaders (13%) and very few secondary school leaders (6%) said that pupil misbehaviour had interrupted all or most of the lessons they had taught in the previous week.
When last asked, in March 2025, a similar proportion of primary (10%) and secondary school leaders (8%) said that pupil misbehaviour had interrupted all or most of the lessons they had taught in the previous week.
In May 2024, a similar proportion of primary school leaders (10%) 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.
We asked teachers and leaders who had taught a lesson in the previous week of term how many minutes had been lost to misbehaviour per 30 minutes of lesson time. On average, teachers reported that 7 minutes had been lost due to misbehaviour. In May 2024, this figure was also 7 minutes. On average, leaders reported that 5 minutes had been lost due to misbehaviour. In May 2024, this figure was also 5 minutes.
We asked primary and secondary teachers how confident they personally feel about managing misbehaviour in their school.
Figure 27: Extent to which teachers feel confident about managing misbehaviour
| Phase | Very confident | Fairly confident | Not very confident | Not at all confident | Not sure | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | 32% | 64% | 4% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Secondary | 32% | 63% | 5% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
Base: Primary and secondary school teachers (n = 1010). Data table reference = “misbehave_confidence”.
The majority of primary school teachers (96%) and secondary school teachers (94%) said they felt very or fairly confident dealing with misbehaviour.
When last asked, in February 2025, a similar proportion of primary school teachers (94%) and secondary school teachers (92%) said they felt very or fairly confident dealing with misbehaviour.
In May 2024, a similar proportion of primary school teachers (93%) and secondary school teachers (89%) said they felt very or fairly confident dealing with misbehaviour.
We asked primary and secondary leaders how confident they personally feel about managing misbehaviour in their school.
Figure 28: Extent to which leaders feel confident about managing misbehaviour
| Phase | Very confident | Fairly confident | Not very confident | Not at all confident | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | 63% | 36% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
| Secondary | 66% | 32% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
Base: Primary and secondary school leaders (n = 1025). Data table reference = “misbehave_confidence”.
The majority of primary school leaders (99%) and secondary school leaders (99%) said they felt very or fairly confident dealing with misbehaviour.
When last asked, in May 2024, a similar proportion of primary school leaders (98%) and secondary school leaders (98%) said they felt very or fairly confident dealing with misbehaviour.
In March 2024, a similar proportion of primary school leaders (100%) and secondary school leaders (98%) said they felt very or fairly confident dealing with misbehaviour.
We asked primary and secondary teachers to what extent pupil misbehaviour has had a negative impact on their health and wellbeing.
Figure 29: Extent to which teachers feel pupil misbehaviour has had a negative impact on their health and wellbeing
| Phase | To a great extent | To some extent | To a small extent | Not at all | Not applicable - there has been no poor pupil behaviour | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | 17% | 30% | 27% | 23% | 3% | 1% | 100% |
| Secondary | 7% | 31% | 35% | 25% | 3% | 0% | 100% |
Base: Primary and secondary school teachers (n = 1010). Data table reference = “misbehave_wellbeing”.
A minority of primary school teachers (47%) and secondary school teachers (37%) said pupil misbehaviour had affected their wellbeing to a great extent or to some extent.
When last asked, in May 2024, a lower proportion of primary school teachers (43%) and a higher proportion of secondary school teachers (43%) said pupil misbehaviour had affected their wellbeing to a great extent or to some extent.
In March 2024, a lower proportion of primary school teachers (43%) and a higher proportion of secondary school teachers (45%) said pupil misbehaviour had affected their wellbeing to a great extent or to some extent.
We also asked primary and secondary leaders to what extent pupil misbehaviour has had a negative impact on their health and wellbeing.
Figure 30: Extent to which leaders feel pupil misbehaviour has had a negative impact on their health and wellbeing
| Phase | To a great extent | To some extent | To a small extent | Not at all | Not applicable - there has been no poor pupil behaviour | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | 7% | 21% | 31% | 36% | 3% | 1% | 100% |
| Secondary | 6% | 14% | 33% | 45% | 1% | 0% | 100% |
Base: Primary and secondary school leaders (n = 1025). Data table reference = “misbehave_wellbeing”.
A minority of primary school leaders (28%) and secondary school leaders (20%) said pupil misbehaviour had affected their wellbeing to a great extent or to some extent.
When last asked, in May 2024, a similar proportion of primary school leaders (26%) and a higher proportion of secondary school leaders (27%) said pupil misbehaviour had affected their wellbeing to a great extent or to some extent.
In March 2024, a similar proportion of primary school leaders (27%) and secondary school leaders (22%) said pupil misbehaviour had affected their wellbeing to a great extent or to some extent.
We asked primary and secondary school teachers how frequently they experienced different types of pupil misbehaviour in lessons they had taught during the past week.
Figure 31: How often teachers experienced different types of pupil misbehaviour during the past week
| Statement | All lessons | Most lessons | Some lessons | Rarely | Never | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pupils talking | 28% | 29% | 30% | 12% | 0% | 1% | 100% |
| Pupils shouting out | 14% | 22% | 34% | 23% | 5% | 1% | 100% |
| Pupils answering back or challenging instructions | 6% | 12% | 30% | 37% | 14% | 1% | 100% |
| Pupils using mobile devices in class | 0% | 1% | 10% | 19% | 69% | 1% | 100% |
| Pupils arriving to lessons late | 4% | 15% | 36% | 25% | 20% | 1% | 100% |
Base: Primary and secondary school teachers. (n = 1010). Data table reference = “nbs_talking”, “nbs_shouting”, “nbs_challenging”, “nbs_mobile”, “nbs_late”.
Finally, we asked primary and secondary school leaders which interventions their school provides where necessary to manage behaviour.
Figure 32: Interventions that schools provide to manage behaviour
| Response | Primary | Secondary |
|---|---|---|
| Targeted interventions | 88% | 95% |
| School counselling and wellbeing services | 59% | 91% |
| Removal as a sanction | 52% | 90% |
| Specialised pastoral support staff | 67% | 88% |
| Referral to specialist services | 75% | 85% |
| Removal as a restorative measure, including nurture and sensory spaces | 79% | 73% |
| Offsite direction | 22% | 78% |
| Pupil support unit | 7% | 45% |
| Other | 5% | 7% |
| None of the above | 1% | 0% |
Base: Primary and secondary school leaders (n = 1025). Data table reference = “nbs_manage”.
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).