Research and analysis

School and college voice: November 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 November 2024 survey wave.

Methodology

The SCV survey is answered by teachers and leaders who have agreed to participate 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 subsequent surveys in the 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 7 November and 17 November. The respondents were:

Audience	Responses
Primary school leaders	465
Secondary school leaders	494
Special school leaders	143
Primary school teachers	406
Secondary school teachers	449
Special school teachers	413

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:

• oracy
• outreach support by special schools
• post-16 transitions
• volume of curriculum content
• interest in flexible working in schools
• pre and post-16 technical education and qualifications
• generative AI
• breakfast clubs
• remote education
• prioritisation of teaching support staff training
• workforce policy

Oracy

We asked secondary and special school leaders whether their school had a specific written strategy for developing pupils’ spoken language and listening skills.

Figure 1: Whether schools have a specific written strategy for developing pupils’ spoken language and listening skills, according to leaders

Response	Secondary	Special
Yes	35%	50%
No, but it is part of our broader learning objectives	52%	47%
No, and it is not part of our broader learning objectives	9%	2%
Don’t know	4%	1%

Base: Secondary and special school leaders (n = 637). Data table reference = “oracy_strategy”.

We asked secondary and special school teachers the same question.

Figure 2: Whether schools have a specific written strategy for developing pupils’ spoken language and listening skills, according to teachers

Response	Secondary	Special
Yes	37%	48%
No, but it is part of our broader learning objectives	37%	38%
No, and it is not part of our broader learning objectives	10%	3%
Don’t know	16%	10%

Base: Secondary and special school teachers (n = 862). Data table reference = “oracy_strategy”.

We asked secondary and special school teachers and leaders what extent the development of pupils’ spoken language and listening skills are implemented across the curriculum.

Figure 3: Teachers’ views on the extent to which the development of pupils’ spoken language and listening skills is implemented across the curriculum

Phase	Entirely	Mostly	Partially	Not at all	Don’t know	Total
Secondary	15%	42%	35%	6%	4%	100%
Special	43%	39%	14%	2%	2%	100%

Base: Secondary and special school teachers (n = 862). Data table reference = “oracy_implementation”.

We also asked leaders the same question.

Figure 4: Leaders’ views on the extent to which the development of pupils’ spoken language and listening skills is implemented across the curriculum

Phase	Entirely	Mostly	Partially	Not at all	Don’t know	Total
Secondary	14%	38%	45%	1%	2%	100%
Special	52%	32%	15%	0%	0%	100%

Base: Secondary and special school leaders (n = 637) Data table reference = “oracy_implementation”.

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

Figure 5: Secondary and special school teacher confidence in developing pupils’ spoken language and listening skills

Phase	Very confident	Somewhat confident	Not very confident	Not at all confident	Don’t know	Total
Secondary	25%	62%	10%	2%	0%	100%
Special	32%	63%	5%	1%	0%	100%

Base: Secondary and special school teachers (n = 862). Data table reference = “oracy_confidence”.

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

Figure 6: Usefulness of the national curriculum for planning and teaching spoken language and listening skills

Phase	Very useful	Fairly useful	Not very useful	Not at all useful	Don’t know	Total
Secondary	2%	29%	24%	10%	35%	100%
Special	6%	19%	47%	13%	15%	100%

Base: Secondary and special school leaders (n = 571). Data table reference = “oracy_useful”.

Outreach support by special schools

We asked special school teachers and leaders whether their school provides outreach to support other schools in their local authority. Outreach support was defined as sharing their schools’ expertise to support teaching, learning and overall development of other settings.

Figure 7: Whether special schools provide outreach to support other schools or the local authority

Response	Teacher	Leader
To mainstream primary schools	34%	50%
To special primary schools	24%	22%
To special secondary schools	19%	16%
To local authority SEN support services	17%	17%
To mainstream secondary schools	14%	23%
To children who are home schooled or out of provision	9%	4%
No	19%	30%
Don’t know	25%	5%

Base: Special school leaders (n = 143). Special school teachers (n = 413). Data table reference = “specialoutreach_provide”.

We asked special school teachers and leaders what type of outreach support their school provided to other schools.

Figure 8: Types of outreach support provided by special schools

Response	Teacher	Leader
Training on special needs for mainstream staff	59%	78%
Offering advice to mainstream school leaders and staff	57%	72%
Inter-school visits to observe teaching practice	54%	61%
Transition support for pupils who will move to a specialist school from a mainstream or alternative provision school	51%	38%
Offering advice or consultancy to other special school leaders and staff	46%	48%
Assessing pupils’ needs	32%	46%
1-1 support for pupils in mainstream	20%	22%
Running SEN units or resourced provision attached to other schools	17%	12%
Other	4%	15%
Don’t know	5%	0%

Base: Special school leaders who provide support to other schools (n = 89). Special school teachers (n = 202). Data table reference = “specialoutreach_type”.

We asked special school leaders who said they provide outreach support how the support was funded.

Figure 9: How outreach support from special schools is funded

Response	Percentage
By a local authority - as part of its SEN support services	50%
By the individual school or college - as part of the existing budget	31%
Through the multi-academy trust	18%
By a local authority - as part of its AP or behaviour support	3%
Other	16%
Don’t know	8%

Base: Special school leaders who said they provide outreach support (n = 93). Data table reference = “specialoutreach_funding”.

Post-16 transitions

We asked special school teachers who teach pupils in year 10 and 11, and special school leaders whose school teaches pupils in years 10 and 11, how confident they feel in supporting pupils to explore their post-16 destinations.

Figure 10: Special school teacher and leader confidence in supporting pupils to explore their post-16 destinations

Audience	Very confident	Fairly confident	Not very confident	Not at all confident	Total
Teachers	19%	53%	23%	4%	100%
Leaders	49%	43%	9%	NA	100%

Base: Special school leaders whose school teaches pupils in years 10 and 11 (n = 114). Special school teachers who teach pupils in years 10 and 11 (n = 167). Data table reference = “postsixteen_confidence”. “Question not answered” is not charted.

We also asked them what support their school provides for all or some pupils in relation to post-16 destinations.

Figure 11: Types of support provided in relation to post-16 destinations

Response	Teacher	Leader
Talk to pupils about their options (e.g. work, education, volunteering)	92%	92%
Providing information to new college or workplaces about the young person’s support needs	85%	93%
Providing support to help with independence (e.g. making friends or travelling)	83%	93%
Visits to post-16 education settings (e.g. college)	83%	95%
Provide work experience opportunities	75%	92%
Provide information on jobs/careers	74%	82%
Provide support with applications or interview practice	68%	77%
Career fair (or similar)	67%	79%
Provide information on volunteering	46%	51%
Provide information on supported internships	39%	57%
Other	6%	15%
Don’t know	2%	0%

Base: Special school leaders whose school teaches pupils in years 10 and 11 (n = 114). Special school teachers who teach pupils in years 10 and 11 (n = 175). Data table reference = “postsixteen_provide”.

We also asked them how easy it was to find resources to help support pupils to transition to post-16 destinations.

Figure 12: Ease of finding resources to support pupils to transition to post-16 destinations

Level	Very easy	Somewhat easy	Not very easy	Not easy at all	Not applicable	Don’t know	Total
Teacher	17%	43%	28%	7%	3%	2%	100%
Leader	10%	40%	30%	13%	3%	5%	100%

Base: Special school leaders whose school teaches pupils in years 10 and 11 (n = 114). Special school teachers who answered the question and who teach pupils in years 10 and 11 (n = 167). Data table reference = “postsixteen_resources”. “Question not answered” is not charted.

We asked the teachers and leaders who find and use resources to help support pupils to transition to post-16 destinations how useful they think the resources are.

Figure 13: Usefulness of resources that help support pupils to transition to post-16 destinations

Audience	Very useful	Fairly useful	Not very useful	Not at all useful	Don’t know	Total
Teachers	20%	50%	20%	2%	9%	100%
Leaders	12%	56%	24%	3%	5%	100%

Base: Special school leaders whose school teaches pupils in years 10 and 11 and who find and use resources to help support pupils to transition to post-16 destinations (n = 108). Special school teachers who teach pupils in years 10 and 11 and who find and use resources to help support pupils to transition to post-16 destinations (n = 155). Data table reference = “postsixteen_useful”.

Volume of curriculum content

We asked teachers about their views on the current level of content and detail in the national curriculum and published A level content. Teachers responded based on the subject and key stage of the last lesson they had taught. For instance, if it was a lesson at key stages 1 to 4 then they were asked about the national curriculum for that subject.

We asked teachers if they thought that the current volume of content for the subject and key stage they taught in their most recent lesson is too much, too little, or about right for them to teach effectively.

Figure 14: Teachers opinions on the volume of content taught at the level they had taught in their most recent lesson

Content	Too much content	About the right level of content	Too little content	Don’t know	Total
National curriculum	53%	41%	3%	3%	100%
A level	47%	53%	0%	0%	100%

Base: Primary and secondary school teachers who said, in their most recent lesson, that they had taught key stage 1, 2, 3 or 4 (n = 780). Secondary school teachers who said, in their most recent lesson, that they had taught A level (n = 66). Data table reference = “curriculumvolume_rightlevel”, “curriculumvolume_contentalevel”.

We asked teachers if they thought that the current level of detail in the content for the subject and key stage they taught in their most recent lesson is too much, too little, or about right for them to teach effectively.

Figure 15: Teachers opinions on the level of detail of content taught at the level they had taught in their most recent lesson

Content	Too much detail	About the right level of detail	Too little detail	Don’t know	Total
National curriculum	37%	50%	9%	4%	100%
A level	15%	62%	19%	4%	100%

Base: Primary and secondary school teachers who said, in their most recent lesson, that they had taught key stage 1, 2, 3 or 4 (n = 780). Secondary school teachers who said, in their most recent lesson, that they had taught A level (n = 66). Data table reference = “curriculumvolume_curriculumdetail”, “curriculumvolume_detailalevel”.

Interest in flexible working in schools

We asked teachers and leaders a series of questions related to flexible working arrangements in their school. Flexible working arrangements allow employees to vary the amount, timing or location of their work.

A minority of teachers (19%) said their school had a flexible working policy that applies to teachers, with a further 4% saying the school is currently in the process of developing one, 34% did not know. Flexible working was defined as arrangements which allow employees to vary the amount, timing, or location of their work.

We asked teachers if, before taking the survey, they were aware that they had a statutory right to request flexible working. A minority of teachers said they knew about this right, 29% of primary, 46% of secondary and 41% of special school teachers.

We asked teachers if in the last academic year they had made any requests for flexible working. A majority (78%) said they had not made any requests for flexible working. A minority (20%) said they had made a request that had been accepted, and a smaller proportion (3%) said they had made a request that had been declined.

We asked teachers who said they had not requested flexible working in the last academic year why that was.

Figure 16: Why teachers have not requested flexible working

Response	Percentage
I was not aware of my statutory right to request flexible working	44%
Flexible working is not compatible with my current role	29%
I don’t feel confident to request flexible working	28%
I am not interested in working flexibly at this time	18%
My school or trust does not support flexible working requests	13%
Working flexibly would affect my career progression	12%
I would like to make a flexible working request but don’t know how	7%
Previous requests have been declined	3%
Other	10%
Prefer not to say	2%

Base: Teachers who said they had not requested flexible working in the last academic year (n = 980). Data table reference = “flexibleworking_reason”.

We asked teachers if they worked in any of the following ways that relate to flexible working:

Figure 17: Forms of flexible working teachers said they use

Response	Secondary	Special	Primary
Planning, preparation and assessment (PPA) time offsite	6%	28%	30%
Part-time	21%	19%	27%
Occasional ad hoc requests for time off or changes to hours at managers discret	10%	15%	18%
Job share	2%	4%	17%
Home or remote working (formally agreed as part of directed time or timetabled hou	1%	3%	2%
Annualised hours - working hours spread across the year	3%	2%	3%
Compressed hours - working agreed hours but over fewer days	1%	0%	0%
None of these	62%	46%	41%
Other	2%	1%	1%
Don’t know	1%	2%	0%

Base: All teachers (n = 1268). Data table reference = “flexibleworking_currentlywork”.

We asked teachers which types of flexible working arrangements they would be interested in if the school could make it available to them.

Figure 18: Types of flexible working arrangements teachers would be interested in, if they were available

Response	Secondary	Primary	Special
PPA time offsite	73%	62%	61%
Home or remote working (formally agreed as part of directed time or timetabled hours)	61%	43%	45%
Occasional ad hoc requests for time off or changes to hours at managers discretion	50%	54%	47%
Compressed hours - working agreed hours but over fewer days	45%	30%	30%
Part-time	21%	15%	15%
Job share	6%	11%	8%
Annualised hours - working hours spread across the year	7%	8%	9%
None of these	7%	8%	8%
Other	1%	1%	1%
Don’t know	1%	6%	5%

Base: All teachers (n = 1268). Data table reference = “flexibleworking_interested”.

We asked leaders what forms of flexible working are used by any teachers or leaders at their school.

Figure 19: Forms of flexible working school leaders say are used by any teachers and leaders at their school

Response	Secondary	Special	Primary
Part-time	94%	89%	86%
Job share	26%	45%	66%
Occasional ad hoc requests for time off or changes to hours at managers discretion	66%	63%	63%
PPA time offsite	24%	57%	56%
Home or remote working (formally agreed as part of directed time or timetabled hours)	22%	29%	18%
Compressed hours - working agreed hours but over fewer days	17%	11%	8%
Annualised hours - working hours spread across the year	14%	7%	6%
None of these	2%	3%	3%
Other	3%	3%	0%
Don’t know	1%	0%	1%

Base: All leaders (n = 1102). Data table reference = “flexibleworking_staffwork”.

We asked leaders who said they have forms of flexible working at school, and have responsibility over flexible working decisions for all staff, which factors they consider important when making a decision whether or not to allow a teacher or leader to work flexibly within their school.

Figure 20: Factors leaders consider important when making a decision whether to allow a teacher or leader to work flexibly

Response	Special	Primary	Secondary
Effects on the pupils	91%	75%	75%
Teaching workforce capacity	50%	53%	57%
Timetabling and other scheduling considerations	31%	31%	50%
Financial costs and school budget considerations	45%	48%	30%
Staff wellbeing and productivity	42%	34%	30%
Impact on wider team and other staff	25%	37%	28%
Perceptions of fairness of process	12%	12%	17%
Promoting an inclusive workplace	2%	5%	9%
Other	0%	1%	0%

Base: Leaders who said they have forms of flexible working at school and have responsibility over flexible working decisions for all staff (n = 514). Data table reference = “flexibleworking_considerations”.

Pre and post-16 technical education and qualifications and their perceived complexity and impact

We asked secondary school teachers the extent to which they thought that pupils they teach in key stage 4 have a good understanding of how their choice of courses for post-16 study affects their future education and employment opportunities. We also asked teachers the extent to which they thought that current key stage 3 pupils they teach have a good understanding of how their choice of courses at key stage 4 affects their future education and employment opportunities.

Figure 21: Extent key stage 3 and 4 pupils have a good understanding of how their choice of courses affect their future education and employment opportunities

Group	To a great extent	To some extent	To a small extent	Not at all	Don’t know	Total
Key stage 3 pupils	16%	56%	24%	2%	3%	100%
Key stage 4 pupils	27%	59%	12%	2%	1%	100%

Base: Secondary school teachers who teach key stage 3(n = 449). Secondary school teachers who teach key stage 4 (n = 440). Data table reference = “technicalqualifications_ks4understanding”, “technicalqualifications_post16understanding”.

We asked secondary school teachers how helpful they thought advice and support given to pupils at school is in helping them to make informed choices about their study options.

Figure 22: Helpfulness of advice and support given to pupils in helping them make informed choices about their study options

Audience	Very helpful	Somewhat helpful	Not very helpful	Not at all helpful	Don’t know	Total
Secondary school teachers	38%	55%	6%	0%	0%	100%

Base: Secondary school teachers (n = 449). Data table reference = “technicalqualifications_informedchoice”.

We asked secondary school leaders whose school offered technical awards at key stage 4 why they offered those qualifications.

Figure 23: Why schools offer technical awards at key stage 4

Response	Percentage
They suit some pupil’s learning styles better than GCSEs	69%
They are more appropriate for some pupil’s post-16 pathways than GCSEs	69%
The assessment method is more appealing to pupils	48%
They support pupil engagement with school	42%
Content is more interesting or relevant to pupils than GCSEs	40%
Teachers prefer teaching the content of Technical Awards compared to GCSEs	11%
Other	2%
Don’t know	1%

Base: Secondary school leaders whose school offers technical awards at key stage 4 (n = 174). Data table reference = “technicalqualifications_reason”.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI)

We asked all teachers and leaders whether they had used generative AI tools in their role as a teacher or leader. We defined generative AI as technology that uses learning algorithms to produce content that can include audio, code, images, text, simulations, and videos.

Figure 24: Whether teachers and leaders had used generative AI tools in their role

Level	Yes	No - but I plan to	No - and I do not plan to	Don’t know	Total
Teacher	50%	21%	27%	2%	100%
Leader	48%	26%	24%	1%	100%

Base: All leaders (n = 1102). All teachers (n = 1268). Data table reference = “ai_use”.

We asked teachers and leaders who said they had used generative AI, what tasks they had used generative AI to support.

Figure 25: Tasks teachers and leaders had used generative AI to support

Response	Leader	Teacher
Creating resources for lessons or curriculum resources for pupils to use	54%	73%
Communicating and engaging with parents or carers	54%	30%
Drafting policy documents	52%	0%
Planning lessons and curriculum content	38%	47%
Teacher training or sharing resources with other teachers	25%	15%
Assessments, plagiarism checks, marking and feedback	23%	21%
Supporting pupils with SEND	16%	25%
Delivering lessons	13%	15%
Other	9%	3%

Base: Leaders (n = 535) and teachers (n = 583) who said they had used generative AI in their role. Data table reference = “ai_tasks”.

We asked teachers and leaders who said they had not used generative AI tools in their role why this was.

Figure 26: Why teachers and leaders have not used generative AI in their role

Response	Teacher	Leader
I don’t know enough about how generative AI tools could be used in my role	64%	66%
I am concerned about the risks of using generative AI tools	35%	37%
My school does not have the technology required to use generative AI tools	14%	9%
Generative AI tools are not applicable for my role	6%	7%
I had not heard about generative AI tools before today	5%	3%
My school has restricted the use of generative AI tools	3%	4%
Other	10%	11%
Don’t know	3%	2%

Base: Leaders (n = 552) and teachers (n = 655) who said they had not used generative AI tools in their role. Data table reference = “ai_notused”.

We asked all teachers and leaders if they were considering any changes within their school or college to account for generative AI tools and technology.

Figure 27: Whether teachers and leaders are considering changes within their school to account for generative AI tools and technology

Response	Teacher	Leader
We have already made changes	5%	8%
We are in the process of reviewing or making changes	13%	20%
We plan to review or make changes in the future	11%	28%
We have no current plans to consider this issue	26%	32%
Don’t know	46%	12%

Base: All leaders (n = 1102). All teachers (n = 1268). Data table reference = “ai_changes”.

Finally, we asked teachers if pupils were permitted to use generative AI in the work they set. The majority (76%) said no, very few 6% said yes and 18% did not know.

Breakfast clubs

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

Figure 28: Childcare provisions offered in primary schools

Response	Percentage
Before school childcare, with breakfast provision	80%
After school childcare (not including extracurricular clubs)	67%
Breakfast provided before or during the school day, not including childcare	6%
Before school childcare, without breakfast provision	5%
Don’t know	0%
My school does not offer any of the above	9%

Base: Primary school leaders (n = 465). Data table reference = “breakfast_childcareoffer”.

We asked primary leaders who said that their school offers before school childcare provision what the duration of that provision is.

Figure 29: Duration of before-school childcare

Response	Percentage
Less than 30 minutes	2%
Between 30 to 45 minutes	17%
Between 45 minutes to an hour	43%
Over an hour	38%

Base: Primary school leaders who said that their school offers offers before school childcare provision (n = 392). Data table reference = “breakfast_provisionduration”.

We asked primary leaders who said that their school offers a breakfast provision, which groups they had used to deliver this provision since the start of the academic year.

Figure 30: Groups used by primary schools to deliver breakfast provision since the start of the academic year

Response	Percentage
Teaching assistants	78%
Qualified childcare workers	27%
Catering staff	13%
Teachers	13%
Older workers unrelated to pupils	6%
Students	3%
Apprentices	3%
Family relation or carer of pupils at the school	3%
Other unqualified childcare workers	16%
Don’t know	1%

Base: Primary school leaders who said that their school offers a breakfast provision (n = 396). For the responses “Older workers unrelated to pupils” and “Family relation or carer of pupils at the school”, we specified that the person should not be employed in any other capacity at the school. Data table reference = “breakfast_providers”.

We also asked primary leaders who said their school offers breakfast provision which external providers, if any, the school uses to offer the breakfast club provision.

Figure 31: External providers used to deliver breakfast provision

Response	Percentage
None of the above - my school only uses internal resources	65%
Private, voluntary or independent (PVI) childcare organisation	15%
Charity or corporate sponsor, for example Magic Breakfast	9%
DfE’s national school breakfast programme (Family Action)	4%
Other organisations or groups	3%
An external catering company	1%
Don’t know	3%

Base: Primary school leaders who said that their school offers a breakfast provision (n = 396). Data table reference = “breakfast_externalproviders”.

We asked primary leaders who said their school does not offer breakfast provision what their reasons for that were.

Figure 32: Reasons why primary schools do not offer breakfast provision

Response	Percentage
Breakfast provision is available elsewhere	46%
The school does not currently have sufficient staff to offer breakfast provision	42%
It is not financially viable for the school	35%
There is insufficient demand from parents	28%
The school does not have the space or facilities	27%
Other	14%
Don’t know	4%

Base: Primary school leaders who said that their school does not offer breakfast provision (n = 69). Data table reference = “breakfast_notoffering”.

We asked primary leaders what proportion of their schools’ pupils could they offer breakfast provisions to if required, considering all of their currently available space (including all on-site space and all off-site venues).

Figure 33: Proportion of pupils primary schools could offer breakfast provisions to if required

Response	Percentage
All pupils	11%
Up to 80%	1%
Up to 60%	9%
Up to 40%	22%
Up to 20%	41%
None	1%
Don’t know	14%

Base: Primary school leaders (n = 465). Data table reference = “breakfast_proportionpossible”.

We asked primary school leaders what challenges, if any, would their school face related to space and premises if it was to offer breakfast provision to all pupils.

Figure 34: Challenges related to space and premises schools would face if it was to offer breakfast provision to all pupils

Response	Percentage
The communal space is not large enough to offer provision to all pupils	68%
The classrooms are not a viable option for providing breakfast in	64%
There is insufficient space to prepare, distribute and store more breakfast onsite	53%
The playground and external premises are not a viable option to provide breakfast in	47%
There is no nearby venue from an external provider that we can use	34%
The school’s surplus space is not a viable option to provide breakfast in	31%
The school would not face any challenges related to space and premises	10%
Other	7%
Don’t know	1%

Base: Primary school leaders (n = 465). “Not applicable- The school already offers breakfast provision to all pupils” not charted here. Data table reference = “breakfast_locationchallenges”.

Remote Education

We asked primary and secondary school leaders how quickly they would be able to make suitable remote learning arrangements for pupils using either technology or paper resources if their setting had to close fully (for example because of severe flooding), or a small number of pupils were unable to attend for longer than a couple of days but were well enough to learn (for example for public health reasons).

Figure 35: How quickly schools would be able to make suitable remote learning arrangements for pupils

Response	Primary	Secondary
Within 24 hours	68%	77%
1 to 2 days	26%	18%
3 to 4 days	4%	2%
Longer than 4 days	1%	2%
My school would not be able to provide remote learning	0%	0%
Don’t know	1%	1%

Base: Primary and secondary school leaders (n = 959). Data table reference = “remoteeducation_delivery”.

We asked the leaders who said they would be able to provide remote learning, in the same scenario, how confident they were that they would be able to deliver suitable remote learning.

Figure 36: Leader confidence in delivering suitable remote learning

Phase	Very confident	Fairly confident	Not very confident	Not at all confident	Don’t know	Total
Primary	48%	47%	4%	1%	1%	100%
Secondary	62%	35%	3%	0%	0%	100%

Base: Primary and secondary school leaders who said they would be able to provide remote learning (n = 957). Data table reference = “remoteeducation_confidence”.

We asked the leaders who said they would be able to provide remote learning, in the same scenario, roughly what percentage of pupils they thought could physically access their remote learning offer. We defined physically accessed as using a home owned device, a school loaned device, or using paper resources.

Figure 37: Percentage of pupils leaders think could physically access their remote learning offer

Phase	1%-20%	21%-40%	41%-60%	61%-80%	81%-99%	100%	Don’t know	Total
Primary	1%	6%	17%	26%	35%	11%	3%	100%
Secondary	0%	3%	10%	28%	49%	9%	1%	100%

Base: Primary and secondary school leaders who said they would be able to provide remote learning (n = 957). Data table reference = “remoteeducation_access”.

We asked all primary and secondary leaders what barriers, if any, would most concern them about their school delivering, and pupils accessing, a high-quality remote learning offer as a contingency measure.

Figure 38: Barriers that would most concern leaders about their school delivering, and pupils accessing, a high quality remote learning offer as a contingency measure

Response	Primary	Secondary
Pupils do not have consistent access to a device at home	68%	53%
The school cannot provide enough devices for pupils who don’t have their own	51%	49%
Parents are unable to or not interested in supporting their children with the learning	45%	34%
Pupils have poor or no internet access at home	30%	43%
Pupils’ home environment is not conducive to learning	33%	42%
Pupils would not attend remote lessons	14%	27%
Pupils have special education needs, for which the necessary support cannot be provided at home	20%	19%
Staff do not have appropriate equipment	7%	11%
There is a lack of suitable learning resources	2%	2%
No barriers	2%	2%
Other	1%	1%
Don’t know	2%	0%

Base: Primary and secondary school leaders (n = 959). Data table reference = “remoteeducation_barriers”.

Prioritisation of teaching support staff training

We asked primary and secondary leaders who said they had specialist teaching assistants (TAs) at their school if they expect their TAs to have accredited Speech, Language and Communication Need (SLCN) training to be classed a ‘specialist TA’ within their workforce. A minority (18%) said yes and 58% said no. A minority (24%) said they didn’t know.

We then asked if they had received funding support to contribute towards specialists training courses for specialist TAs. We specified that funding support may include, but is not limited to, training funded through the local authority or training funded by the DfE.

Figure 39: Whether schools received funding support to contribute towards specialists training courses for specialist TAs

Response	Primary	Secondary
Yes - partial funding for specialist training courses	12%	7%
Yes - full funding for specialist training courses	6%	2%
No	53%	35%
Don’t know	29%	56%

Base: Primary and secondary school leaders (n = 959). Data table reference = “teachingsupporttraining_funding”.

We asked primary and secondary leaders, who said they had specialist TAs at their school, if the specialist TAs in their current workforce had the skills to identify SLCN in learners.

Figure 40: Whether the specialist TAs in the schools current workforce have the skills to identify SLCN in learners

Response	Primary	Secondary
Yes - some of the specialist TA’s we employ have the skills	45%	38%
Yes - all specialist TA’s have the skills	7%	5%
No	33%	18%
Don’t know	15%	39%

Base: Primary and secondary school leaders who said they had specialist TAs at their school (n = 730). Data table reference = “teachingsupporttraining_identifyneeds”.

We also asked primary and secondary leaders if the specialist TAs in their current workforce had the right skills to support learners with SLCN.

Figure 41: Whether the specialist TAs in school’s current workforce have the skills to support SLCN in learners

Response	Primary	Secondary
Yes - some of the specialist TA’s we employ have the skills	57%	47%
Yes - all specialist TA’s have the skills	9%	8%
No	23%	11%
Don’t know	11%	34%

Base: Primary and secondary school leaders who said they had specialist TAs at their school (n = 730). Data table reference = “teachingsupporttraining_support”.

Workforce policy

We asked primary, secondary and special school teachers and leaders whether they had heard of five DfE resources and programmes.

Figure 42: Whether teachers and leaders had heard of five DfE resources and programmes

Response	Leader	Teacher
The improve workload and wellbeing for school staff service (formally the school workload reduction toolkit)	60%	22%
The education staff wellbeing charter	39%	16%
The school leaders’ mental health and wellbeing service	31%	10%
The flexible working toolkit	30%	8%
Flexible working ambassador MATs and schools (FWAMS)	3%	1%
None of the above	26%	64%

Base: All primary secondary and special school leaders (n = 1102). All primary secondary and special school teachers (n = 1268).Data table reference = “workforcepolicyresources_heard”.

We asked those who said they had heard of at least one of these programmes, which of those they had heard of they had used in the last 12 months.

Figure 43: Which DfE resources or programmes teachers and leaders have used in the last 12 months

Response	Leader	Teacher
The improve workload and wellbeing for school staff service (formally the school workload reduction toolkit)	34%	9%
The education staff wellbeing charter	21%	6%
The school leaders’ mental health and wellbeing service	10%	0%
The flexible working toolkit	8%	1%
Flexible working ambassador MATs and schools (FWAMS)	0%	0%
None of the above	53%	0%

Base: All primary secondary and special school leaders who had heard of at least one of the DfE programmes (n = 824). All primary secondary and special school teachers who had heard of at least one of the DfE programmes (n = 465). Teachers and leaders who answered this question were only given the programmes they said they had heard of as options. Data table reference = “workforcepolicyresources_used”.

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). School and College Voice - findings from November 2024