Research and analysis

School and college voice: June 2026

Updated 29 October 2026

Applies to England

Introduction

The Department for Education (DfE) commissioned Verian 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 the department 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 June 2026 survey wave of the SCV.

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 the June 2026 survey between 30 June and 13 July 2026. The respondents were:

Audience	Responses
Primary school leaders	440
Secondary school leaders	512
Special school leaders	148
Primary school teachers	479
Secondary school teachers	509
Special school teachers	496

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 school and college voice 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 2024 to 2025. 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.

In this report, we round figures to the nearest whole number.

We use consistent terminology to describe percentages that fall within specific bands, as follows:

• very few – 0% to 10%
• a small minority – 11% to 32%
• a minority – 33% to 47%
• about half – 48% to 52%
• the majority – 53% to 66%
• a large majority – 67% to 89%
• almost all – 90% to 100%

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. Data are rounded to the nearest percentage point. This means that when categories are combined, the rounded total figure may differ slightly from the sum of the rounded constituent figures.

Unless otherwise stated, when we refer to the ‘average’, we are reporting the arithmetic mean. Non-response categories such as ‘don’t know’, ‘prefer not to say’ and ‘refused’ are not typically presented in our tabulations and charts when their value rounds to zero.

Wherever data have been ranked in descending order, the data are typically ordered according to the ‘Total’ column in the accompanying published data tables. As such, the order for individual sub-groups within a table or chart may not appear in strict descending order. Small sub-groups will have less influence on the overall ranking than larger sub-groups.

Further information on the survey methodology is available in the accompanying school and college voice technical report.

Topics covered in this survey

The survey included questions about:

• mobile phones
• behaviour
• suspensions and exclusions
• seclusion and restraint
• knife crime as a safeguarding issue
• sexual violence and harassment
• teacher and leader wellbeing

Mobile phones

We asked leaders how pupils were currently allowed to use mobile phones whilst at school. They were shown a list of options and asked to select the one option that most accurately described the rules on mobile phones at their school.

Primary leaders were asked to select the option that most accurately described the rules for year 6 pupils if their rules varied depending on year group. Secondary leaders were asked to select the option that most accurately described the rules for key stage 3 and key stage 4 pupils if their rules varied by year group. Special school leaders were asked to select the option that most accurately described the way most pupils were allowed to use their phones if the rules varied between pupils.

Figure 1: How pupils were allowed to use mobile phones while at school

Response	Primary leaders	Secondary leaders	Special leaders
Pupils hand their mobile phones in or leave it in a secure place that they cannot access during the school day	78%	21%	63%
Pupils can bring their mobile phone to school but it must be kept out of sight, and they are not allowed to use it	2%	70%	11%
Pupils are not allowed to bring their mobile phone on to school grounds	16%	4%	8%
Pupils are only allowed to use their mobile phone when a teacher says they can during lessons	0%	1%	1%
Pupils are only allowed to use their mobile phone during break and lunch time	0%	0%	2%
Pupils can use their mobile phone at any time in school	0%	0%	0%
Other	3%	4%	7%
Don’t know	0%	0%	1%
We do not currently have a policy on rules for mobile phones	2%	0%	7%

Base: All primary leaders (n = 440), secondary leaders (n = 512) and special school leaders (n = 148). Data table reference = “phones_policy”.

The most widespread mobile phone policy reported by primary leaders was for pupils to hand their mobile phones in or leave them in a secure place that they cannot access during the school day. A large majority of primary leaders adopted this policy (78%), broadly unchanged from May 2025 when the question was last asked.

Among secondary leaders, the most widespread policy was for pupils to bring their mobile phone to school but ensure they are kept out of sight, and they are not allowed to use them. However, the proportion that reported this policy was lower in June 2026 (70%) than in May 2025 (75%). The proportion of secondary leaders that said pupils hand their mobile phones in or leave them in a secure place that they cannot access during the school day was higher in June 2026 (21%) than in May 2025 (9%).

For special school leaders, the most widespread policy was for pupils to hand their mobile phones in or leave them in a secure place that they cannot access during the school day (63%). No trend data is available for special schools.

We asked leaders whose school had a policy on mobile phones how often pupils in their school followed that policy over the past week of term.

Figure 2: How often pupils followed the school’s policy on mobile phones, as reported by leaders

Phase	All of the time	Most of the time	Some of the time	Rarely	Never	Don’t know	Total
Primary	85%	12%	0%	0%	1%	2%	100%
Secondary	24%	68%	6%	2%	0%	0%	100%
Special	65%	31%	3%	0%	0%	1%	100%

Base: Primary leaders (n = 431), secondary leaders (n = 512) and special school leaders (n = 137) whose school had a mobile phone policy. Data table reference = “phones_followrules”.

Overall, 97% of primary leaders, 92% of secondary leaders and 97% of special school leaders said that their school’s mobile phone rules were followed most or all of the time.

We asked teachers how often pupils that they taught followed the school’s policy on mobile phones. Overall, 18% of primary teachers, 0% of secondary teachers and 14% of special school teachers said that their school did not currently have a policy or rules for mobile phones. The data in Figure 3 have been rebased to exclude these teachers.

Figure 3: How often pupils followed the school’s policy on mobile phones, as reported by teachers

Phase	All of the time	Most of the time	Some of the time	Rarely	Never	Don’t know	Total
Primary	64%	23%	4%	1%	0%	8%	100%
Secondary	21%	58%	15%	5%	1%	0%	100%
Special	62%	27%	6%	1%	1%	4%	100%

Base: Primary teachers (n = 392), secondary teachers (n = 508) and special school teachers (n = 430) who said their school had a mobile phone policy. Data table reference = “phones_followrules”.

Overall, 88% of primary teachers, 78% of secondary teachers and 89% of special school teachers said that their school’s mobile phone rules were followed most or all of the time.

We asked teachers whose school had a mobile phone policy how many minutes per day they personally spent enforcing their school’s phone policy with pupils. Enforcement was defined to include collecting devices, giving verbal warnings to pupils and making confiscations.

Figure 4: Amount of time spent by teachers enforcing the school’s mobile phone policy each day

Phase	Did not spend any time	Less than 15 minutes	15 to 30 minutes	More than 30 minutes	Don’t know	Total
Primary teachers	64%	33%	1%	0%	1%	100%
Secondary teachers	14%	65%	15%	5%	1%	100%
Special teachers	50%	42%	6%	3%	0%	100%

Base: Primary teachers (n = 392), secondary teachers (n = 508) and special school teachers (n = 430) whose school had a mobile phone policy. Data table reference = “phones_timeenforce”.

We also asked leaders whose school had a mobile phone policy how many minutes per day they personally spent enforcing it with pupils.

Figure 5: Amount of time spent by leaders enforcing the school’s mobile phone policy each day

Phase	Did not spend any time	Less than 15 minutes	15 to 30 minutes	More than 30 minutes	Don’t know	Total
Primary leaders	51%	45%	2%	1%	1%	100%
Secondary leaders	11%	64%	14%	10%	0%	100%
Special leaders	50%	39%	9%	1%	0%	100%

Base: Primary leaders (n = 431), secondary leaders (n = 512) and special school leaders (n = 137) whose school had a mobile phone policy. Data table reference = “phones_timeenforce”.

From 1 September 2026 new statutory requirements about the use of mobile phones in schools will come into effect. The new requirements specify that schools should be mobile phone-free environments by default and that anything other than this should be by exception only.

We asked leaders with a mobile phone policy whether their school had changed its policy ahead of the upcoming change in requirements.

Figure 6: Whether leaders’ schools had changed their mobile phone policy ahead of the change in requirements

Phase	We have updated our mobile phone policy to be compliant	We were already compliant	No, but we plan to make the changes	No, we don’t plan to change our policy	Don’t know	Total
Primary leaders	13%	55%	9%	16%	7%	100%
Secondary leaders	38%	46%	11%	4%	1%	100%
Special leaders	16%	60%	6%	11%	7%	100%

Base: Primary leaders (n = 431), secondary leaders (n = 512) and special school leaders (n = 137) whose school had a mobile phone policy. Data table reference = “phones_updated”.

Behaviour

We asked teachers and leaders a series of questions on the behaviour of pupils in school. In the earlier waves of the survey to which comparisons are made, only teachers and leaders at primary and secondary schools were asked the pupil behaviour questions. As such, it is not possible to report equivalent trend data for special schools.

We asked teachers how the behaviour of pupils at their school had been over the previous week of term.

Figure 7: Teachers’ 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	7%	47%	18%	20%	7%	0%	100%
Secondary	11%	48%	20%	17%	4%	1%	100%
Special	12%	45%	24%	13%	5%	1%	100%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 479), secondary teachers (n = 509) and special school teachers (n = 496). Data table reference = “behaviour_rating”.

Overall, 54% of primary teachers, 58% of secondary teachers and 57% of special school teachers said the behaviour of pupils at their school over the previous week had been good or very good.

Conversely, 27% of primary teachers, 21% of secondary teachers and 18% of special school teachers reported that behaviour had been poor or very poor.

The proportion of primary teachers who rated behaviour as good or very good was lower in June 2026 (54%) than in May 2025 (69%). Opinions of behaviour among secondary teachers remained broadly stable over the same period.

The proportion of primary teachers who rated behaviour as poor or very poor was higher in June 2026 (27%) than in May 2025 (14%). The proportion of secondary teachers who rated behaviour as poor or very poor was also higher in June 2026 (21%) than in May 2025 (16%).

We also asked school leaders how the behaviour of pupils in their school had been over the previous week of term.

Figure 8: Leaders’ 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%	57%	9%	5%	1%	0%	100%
Secondary	26%	55%	12%	7%	1%	0%	100%
Special	28%	57%	12%	2%	0%	0%	100%

Base: All primary leaders (n = 440), secondary leaders (n = 512) and special school leaders (n = 148). Data table reference = “behaviour_rating”.

A large majority of primary leaders (85%), secondary leaders (80%) and special school leaders (85%) rated pupil behaviour over the previous week of term as good or very good.

Conversely, 6% of primary leaders, 8% of secondary leaders and 2% of special school leaders rated pupil behaviour as poor or very poor.

The proportion of primary leaders who rated behaviour as good or very good was lower in June 2026 (85%) than in May 2025 (91%). The proportion of secondary leaders rating behaviour as good or very good was broadly stable when comparing June 2026 with May 2025.

The proportion of primary and secondary leaders who rated behaviour as poor or very poor was also broadly the same in June 2026 as it was in May 2025.

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

Figure 9: How often teachers felt their school had been calm and orderly over the past week of term

Phase	Every day	Most days	Some days	Never	Don’t know	Total
Primary	13%	43%	37%	6%	1%	100%
Secondary	18%	46%	31%	5%	1%	100%
Special	9%	47%	37%	6%	1%	100%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 479), secondary teachers (n = 509) and special school teachers (n = 496). Data table reference = “behaviour_calm”.

Overall, 56% of primary teachers, 64% of secondary teachers and 56% of special school teachers said their school had been calm and orderly on every day or most days in the past week of term.

The proportion of primary teachers who said their school had been calm and orderly was lower in June 2026 (56%) than in May 2025 (66%). The proportion of secondary teachers reporting that their school had been calm and orderly was broadly stable over the same period.

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

Figure 10: How often leaders felt their school had been calm and orderly over the past week of term

Phase	Every day	Most days	Some days	Never	Don’t know	Total
Primary	37%	50%	11%	1%	0%	100%
Secondary	43%	46%	9%	2%	0%	100%
Special	26%	60%	12%	2%	0%	100%

Base: All primary leaders (n = 440), secondary leaders (n = 512) and special school leaders (n = 148). Data table reference = “behaviour_calm”.

Overall, 88% of primary leaders, 89% of secondary leaders and 86% of special school leaders said their school had been calm and orderly on every day or most days in the past week of term.

The proportion of primary leaders who said their school had been calm and orderly was broadly the same in June 2026 and May 2025. The proportion of secondary leaders reporting that their school was calm and orderly was higher in June 2026 (89%) than in May 2025 (84%).

We asked teachers in how many lessons they had taught during the past week of term pupil misbehaviour had stopped or interrupted the teaching or learning.

Figure 11: Proportion of teachers’ lessons interrupted by pupil misbehaviour over the past week of term

Phase	All lessons	Most lessons	Some lessons	Rarely	Never	Haven’t taught any lessons	Don’t know	Total
Primary	19%	32%	32%	15%	1%	1%	0%	100%
Secondary	8%	24%	41%	21%	4%	1%	0%	100%
Special	10%	21%	41%	19%	4%	3%	2%	100%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 479), secondary teachers (n = 509) and special school teachers (n = 496). Data table reference = “misbehave_interrupt”.

A large majority of primary teachers (83%), secondary teachers (73%) and special school teachers (73%) said that at least some lessons over the past week of term had been stopped or interrupted due to pupil misbehaviour.

The proportion of primary school teachers who said at least some lessons had been interrupted was higher in June 2026 (83%) than in May 2025 (76%). The proportion of secondary school teachers who said lessons had been stopped or interrupted was broadly the same in June 2026 and May 2025.

We also asked school leaders in how many lessons they taught during the past week of term had pupil misbehaviour stopped or interrupted the teaching or learning.

Figure 12: Proportion of leaders’ lessons interrupted by pupil misbehaviour over the past week of term

Phase	All lessons	Most lessons	Some lessons	Rarely	Never	Haven’t taught any lessons	Total
Primary	3%	10%	27%	28%	5%	26%	100%
Secondary	1%	8%	23%	39%	16%	13%	100%
Special	2%	11%	26%	14%	5%	42%	100%

Base: All primary leaders (n = 440), secondary leaders (n = 512) and special school leaders (n = 148). Data table reference = “misbehave_interrupt”.

Overall, 41% of primary leaders, 32% of secondary leaders and 38% of special school leaders reported that pupil misbehaviour had stopped or interrupted at least some lessons they had taught in the past week.

The proportion of primary and secondary leaders who said pupil misbehaviour had stopped or interrupted lessons was broadly stable comparing June 2026 and May 2025.

We asked teachers and leaders how many minutes in the lessons they taught during the past week of term were lost due to misbehaviour per 30 minutes of teaching or lesson time. Misbehaviour was defined as any behaviour that distracts, interrupts or stops teachers from teaching and pupils from learning.

Overall, primary teachers reported losing an average of 8 minutes per 30 minutes of teaching, compared with 6 minutes for secondary teachers and 9 minutes for special school teachers.

Primary leaders reported losing an average of 6 minutes per 30 minutes of teaching, compared with 5 minutes for secondary leaders and 6 minutes for special school leaders.

We then asked teachers to rate the extent, if at all, to which pupil misbehaviour had had a negative impact on their health and wellbeing during the past week of term.

Figure 13: Extent to which teachers felt pupil misbehaviour had a negative impact on their health and wellbeing

Phase	To a great extent	To some extent	To a small extent	Not at all	Don’t know	Not applicable	Total
Primary	16%	32%	35%	16%	1%	1%	100%
Secondary	7%	28%	38%	26%	1%	1%	100%
Special	7%	27%	32%	29%	1%	4%	100%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 479), secondary teachers (n = 509) and special school teachers (n = 496). Data table reference = “misbehave_wellbeing”.

Overall, 83% of primary teachers, 73% of secondary teachers and 66% of special school teachers said that misbehaviour of pupils at their school over the previous week had a negative impact on their health and wellbeing to at least a small extent.

The proportion of primary school teachers who said misbehaviour of pupils at their school had a negative impact on their health and wellbeing was higher in June 2026 (83%) than in May 2025 (74%). The proportion of secondary school teachers reporting negative impacts was broadly stable across the same period.

We also asked leaders to rate the extent, if at all, to which pupil misbehaviour had had a negative impact on their health and wellbeing during the past week of term.

Figure 14: Extent to which leaders felt pupil misbehaviour had a negative impact on their health and wellbeing

Phase	To a great extent	To some extent	To a small extent	Not at all	Don’t know	Not applicable	Total
Primary	6%	23%	31%	36%	1%	4%	100%
Secondary	2%	16%	30%	50%	1%	1%	100%
Special	1%	16%	34%	45%	1%	4%	100%

Base: All primary leaders (n = 440), secondary leaders (n = 512) and special school leaders (n = 148). Data table reference = “misbehave_wellbeing”.

Overall, 60% of primary leaders, 47% of secondary leaders and 51% of special school leaders said that misbehaviour of pupils at their school over the previous week had a negative impact on their health and wellbeing to at least a small extent.

The proportion of primary school leaders who said misbehaviour of pupils at their school had a negative impact on their health and wellbeing was broadly the same in June 2026 and May 2025. The proportion of secondary leaders reporting that pupil behaviour had a negative impact on their health and wellbeing was lower in June 2026 (47%) than in May 2025 (53%).

We asked teachers how confident, if at all, they felt about managing misbehaviour in their school.

Figure 15: Extent to which teachers felt confident about managing misbehaviour

Phase	Very confident	Fairly confident	Not very confident	Not at all confident	Not sure	Total
Primary	36%	56%	7%	1%	0%	100%
Secondary	38%	54%	5%	2%	0%	100%
Special	45%	52%	2%	1%	0%	100%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 479), secondary teachers (n = 509) and special school teachers (n = 496). Data table reference = “misbehave_confidence”.

Almost all primary teachers (92%), secondary teachers (93%) and special school teachers (97%) said they were fairly or very confident about managing misbehaviour in their school.

The proportions of primary and secondary teachers who reported feeling confident about managing pupil misbehaviour in June 2026 were broadly similar to May 2025.

We also asked leaders how confident, if at all, they felt about managing misbehaviour in their school.

Figure 16: Extent to which leaders felt confident about managing misbehaviour

Phase	Very confident	Fairly confident	Not very confident	Not at all confident	Not sure	Total
Primary	63%	36%	1%	0%	0%	100%
Secondary	74%	25%	1%	0%	0%	100%
Special	74%	26%	0%	0%	0%	100%

Base: All primary leaders (n = 440), secondary leaders (n = 512) and special school leaders (n = 148). Data table reference = “misbehave_confidence”.

Almost all primary leaders (99%), secondary leaders (98%) and special school leaders (100%) said they were fairly or very confident about managing misbehaviour in their school.

The proportion of primary and secondary leaders who reported feeling confident about managing pupil misbehaviour was broadly the same in May 2025 and June 2026.

We asked teachers how often, if at all, pupils had talked when they were not supposed to in lessons they had taught during the past week.

Figure 17: How often pupils had talked in teachers’ lessons when they were not supposed to

Phase	All lessons	Most lessons	Some lessons	Rarely	Never	Don’t know	Total
Primary	42%	27%	24%	6%	0%	0%	100%
Secondary	30%	32%	26%	10%	1%	1%	100%
Special	20%	20%	28%	18%	8%	5%	100%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 479), secondary teachers (n = 509) and special school teachers (n = 496). Data table reference = “nbs_talking”.

Overall, 94% of primary school teachers, 88% of secondary school teachers and 69% of special school teachers reported that, in at least some of the lessons they had taught in the past week, pupils had talked when they were not supposed to.

The proportion of primary school teachers who said pupils had talked when they were not supposed to was higher in June 2026 (94%) than in May 2025 (86%). The proportion of secondary teachers who reported pupils talking was broadly the same in June 2026 and May 2025.

We then asked teachers how often, if at all, pupils had shouted out when they were not supposed to in lessons they had taught during the past week.

Figure 18: How often pupils had shouted out in teachers’ lessons when they were not supposed to

Phase	All lessons	Most lessons	Some lessons	Rarely	Never	Don’t know	Total
Primary	28%	26%	27%	15%	3%	0%	100%
Secondary	9%	19%	36%	28%	6%	1%	100%
Special	17%	19%	30%	20%	10%	5%	100%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 479), secondary teachers (n = 509) and special school teachers (n = 496). Data table reference = “nbs_shouting”.

Overall, 82% of primary teachers, 65% of secondary teachers and 66% of special school teachers reported that, in at least some of the lessons they taught in the past week, pupils had shouted out.

The proportions of primary and secondary teachers who reported that pupils had shouted out when they were not supposed to were broadly similar in June 2026 and May 2025.

We then asked teachers how often, if at all, pupils had answered back or challenged instructions when they were not supposed to in lessons they had taught during the past week.

Figure 19: How often pupils had answered back or challenged instructions when they were not supposed to

Phase	All lessons	Most lessons	Some lessons	Rarely	Never	Don’t know	Total
Primary	11%	14%	32%	30%	13%	0%	100%
Secondary	5%	12%	35%	34%	14%	1%	100%
Special	8%	14%	30%	27%	18%	3%	100%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 479), secondary teachers (n = 509) and special school teachers (n = 496). Data table reference = “nbs_challenging”.

Overall, 57% of primary teachers, 52% of secondary teachers and 52% of special school teachers said that, in at least some of the lessons they had taught in the past week, pupils had answered back or challenged instructions when they were not supposed to.

The proportion of primary teachers who reported that pupils had answered back or challenged instructions was higher in June 2026 (57%) than in May 2025 (49%). The proportion of secondary teachers who reported this was broadly similar in June 2026 and May 2025.

We then asked teachers how often, if at all, pupils had used mobile devices in their class when they were not supposed to during the past week of term.

Figure 20: How often pupils had used mobile devices in teachers’ classes when they were not supposed to

Phase	All lessons	Most lessons	Some lessons	Rarely	Never	Don’t know	Total
Primary	0%	0%	0%	0%	98%	1%	100%
Secondary	1%	2%	15%	29%	53%	1%	100%
Special	0%	0%	3%	8%	88%	1%	100%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 479), secondary teachers (n = 509) and special school teachers (n = 496). Data table reference = “nbs_mobile”.

Overall, 1% of primary teachers, 17% of secondary teachers and 3% of special school teachers said that, in at least some of the lessons they had taught in the past week, pupils had used mobile devices in their class when they were not supposed to.

The proportion of primary and secondary teachers who reported that pupils used mobile devices in their class when they were not supposed to was broadly similar in June 2026 and May 2025.

We then asked teachers how often, if at all, pupils had arrived late to lessons when they were not supposed to during the past week.

Figure 21: How often pupils had arrived late to teachers’ lessons when they were not supposed to

Phase	All lessons	Most lessons	Some lessons	Rarely	Never	Don’t know	Total
Primary	1%	5%	27%	34%	33%	1%	100%
Secondary	9%	24%	43%	21%	3%	1%	100%
Special	2%	3%	23%	28%	42%	2%	100%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 479), secondary teachers (n = 509) and special school teachers (n = 496). Data table reference = “nbs_late”.

Overall, 33% of primary teachers, 75% of secondary teachers and 28% of special school teachers reported that, in at least some of the lessons they taught in the past week, pupils had arrived late to lessons when they were not supposed to.

The proportion of primary and secondary teachers who reported that pupils arrived late to lessons was the same in June 2026 and May 2025.

We asked teachers the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that parents or carers were generally supportive of the school’s behaviour rules.

Figure 22: Extent to which teachers agreed or disagreed that parents or carers were generally supportive of the school’s behaviour rules

Phase	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know	Total
Primary	9%	52%	23%	12%	3%	0%	100%
Secondary	4%	57%	22%	13%	4%	0%	100%
Special	20%	59%	13%	6%	1%	1%	100%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 479), secondary teachers (n = 509) and special school teachers (n = 496). Data table reference = “behaviour_parents”.

Overall, 61% of primary teachers, 61% of secondary teachers and 79% of special school teachers agreed or strongly agreed that parents or carers were generally supportive of their school’s behaviour rules.

The proportions of primary and secondary teachers who agreed or strongly agreed that parents or carers were generally supportive of their school’s behaviour rules were broadly similar in June 2026 and in February 2025 when the question was previously asked.

We also asked teachers whether they could personally access training and development support for behaviour management that was relevant to their experience and needs. Overall, 52% of primary teachers, 56% of secondary teachers and 76% of special school teachers said that they could access such training and development support. Broadly the same proportions of primary and secondary teachers said that they could access such training and support when the question was previously asked in February 2025.

We asked teachers how often the rules on behaviour were applied fairly to all pupils. ‘Fairly’ was defined as meaning that everyone is treated in a way that is reasonable and appropriate to their circumstances.

Figure 23: How often teachers thought rules on behaviour were applied fairly to all pupils

Phase	All of the time	Most of the time	Some of the time	Never	Don’t know	Total
Primary	39%	41%	17%	2%	1%	100%
Secondary	22%	56%	19%	3%	0%	100%
Special	42%	41%	13%	2%	1%	100%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 479), secondary teachers (n = 509) and special school teachers (n = 496). Data table reference = “behaviour_rulesapplied”.

Overall, 80% of primary teachers, 79% of secondary teachers and 84% of special school teachers said that rules on behaviour were applied fairly to all pupils most or all of the time. Broadly the same proportions of primary and secondary teachers said that behaviour rules were applied fairly when the question was previously asked in February 2025.

We asked teachers how confident, if at all, they felt communicating with parents and carers about their child’s behaviour.

Figure 24: Extent to which teachers felt confident in communicating with parents and carers about their child’s behaviour

Phase	Very confident	Fairly confident	Not very confident	Not confident at all	Not applicable	Total
Primary	35%	54%	9%	2%	1%	100%
Secondary	31%	52%	13%	4%	1%	100%
Special	49%	47%	3%	0%	1%	100%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 479), secondary teachers (n = 509) and special school teachers (n = 496). Data table reference = “behaviour_communicateparents”.

Overall, 89% of primary teachers, 83% of secondary teachers and 96% of special school teachers said they were fairly confident or very confident in communicating with parents and carers about their child’s behaviour. The proportions of primary and secondary teachers who were confident in communicating with parents were broadly similar to February 2025 when the question was last asked.

We asked teachers the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that the support they received from senior leaders helped them to effectively manage pupils with persistently disruptive behaviour.

Figure 25: Extent to which teachers agreed or disagreed that the support they received from senior leaders helped them to effectively manage pupils with persistently disruptive behaviour

Phase	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know	Total
Primary	16%	38%	20%	16%	10%	1%	100%
Secondary	14%	37%	24%	18%	7%	0%	100%
Special	23%	40%	19%	12%	5%	0%	100%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 479), secondary teachers (n = 509) and special school teachers (n = 496). Data table reference = “behaviour_sltsupport”.

Overall, 53% of primary teachers, 50% of secondary teachers and 64% of special school teachers said they agreed or strongly agreed that the support they received from senior leaders helped them to effectively manage pupils with persistently disruptive behaviour.

The proportion of primary teachers who agreed that the support they received from senior leaders helped them to effectively manage pupils’ disruptive behaviour was lower in June 2026 (53%) than in February 2025 (61%). The equivalent figures for secondary teachers were also lower in June 2026 (50%) than in February 2025 (57%).

We also asked teachers the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that at their school there was a shared understanding amongst staff of what was meant by ‘good behaviour’.

Figure 26: Extent to which teachers agreed or disagreed that there was a shared understanding amongst staff of what was meant by ‘good behaviour’

Phase	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know	Total
Primary	29%	49%	10%	9%	3%	0%	100%
Secondary	19%	52%	13%	13%	2%	0%	100%
Special	23%	48%	16%	9%	3%	1%	100%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 479), secondary teachers (n = 509) and special school teachers (n = 496). Data table reference = “behaviour_understanding”.

Overall, 78% of primary teachers, 71% of secondary teachers and 71% of special school teachers agreed or strongly agreed that at their school there was a shared understanding amongst staff of what was meant by ‘good behaviour’. Broadly the same proportions of primary and secondary teachers said that there was a shared understanding of good behaviour when the question was previously asked in February 2025.

We then asked teachers the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that pupils understood what would happen if they did not meet the expected standards of pupil behaviour.

Figure 27: Extent to which teachers agreed or disagreed that pupils understood what would happen if they did not meet the expected standards of pupil behaviour

Phase	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know	Total
Primary	22%	49%	13%	12%	4%	0%	100%
Secondary	25%	54%	10%	10%	2%	0%	100%
Special	10%	38%	28%	15%	6%	3%	100%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 479), secondary teachers (n = 509) and special school teachers (n = 496). Data table reference = “behaviour_expectations”.

Overall, 71% of primary teachers, 79% of secondary teachers and 48% of special school teachers agreed or strongly agreed that pupils understood what would happen if they did not meet the expected standards of pupil behaviour.

The proportion of primary teachers who agreed that pupils understood what would happen if they did not meet the expected standards of behaviour was lower in June 2026 (71%) than in February 2025 (76%). Over the same period, the equivalent figures for secondary teachers were broadly stable.

We asked teachers how easy, if at all, they thought it was for pupils to follow, in practice, their school’s rules on pupil behaviour.

Figure 28: Extent to which teachers thought it was easy for pupils to follow their school’s rules on behaviour

Phase	Very easy	Fairly easy	Not very easy	Not easy at all	Don’t know	Total
Primary	42%	49%	6%	2%	1%	100%
Secondary	45%	50%	4%	1%	1%	100%
Special	18%	54%	15%	6%	8%	100%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 479), secondary teachers (n = 509) and special school teachers (n = 496). Data table reference = “behaviour_followrules”.

Overall, 90% of primary teachers, 94% of secondary teachers and 71% of special school teachers said it was either very easy or fairly easy for pupils to follow their school’s rules on behaviour. Broadly the same proportions of primary and secondary teachers said that the school’s rules on behaviour were easy to follow when the question was previously asked in February 2025.

Suspensions and exclusions

We asked leaders which interventions, if any, their school provided, where necessary, to manage behaviour. They were shown a list of interventions and asked to select all that applied.

Figure 29: Interventions provided to manage behaviour in leaders’ schools

Response	Primary leaders	Secondary leaders	Special leaders
Targeted interventions, for example, mentoring, social and emotional learning	88%	94%	88%
Informal interventions within the classroom (for example, a fidget spinner, doing stretches or movement in-class)	90%	86%	93%
Removal as a restorative measure, including nurture and sensory spaces	83%	74%	84%
Referral to specialist services, for example, educational psychologists, speech therapists	74%	86%	83%
Specialised pastoral support staff	64%	90%	86%
Removal from the classroom as a sanction	64%	95%	26%
Internal suspension as a sanction	63%	92%	27%
School counselling and wellbeing services	58%	91%	65%
Offsite direction, for example, to an alternative education provider	23%	85%	22%
Pupil support unit	7%	33%	3%
Other	8%	8%	22%

Base: All primary leaders (n = 440), secondary leaders (n = 512) and special school leaders (n = 148). Data table reference = “nbs_manage”.

We also asked leaders in how many cases their school held a reintegration meeting with parents, carers or guardians after an external suspension.

Figure 30: How often leaders’ schools held a reintegration meeting after an external suspension

Phase	Always	Sometimes	Never	Don’t know	Total
Primary	90%	3%	1%	6%	100%
Secondary	95%	3%	0%	2%	100%
Special	74%	5%	3%	18%	100%

Base: All primary leaders (n = 440), secondary leaders (n = 512) and special school leaders (n = 148). Data table reference = “suspension_reintegration”.

We asked leaders which interventions, if any, they had found to be effective in successfully reintegrating a pupil into their school following an external suspension during the current academic year. They were shown a list of interventions and asked to select all that applied.

Figure 31: Interventions leaders had found to be effective in successfully reintegrating a pupil into their school following an external suspension

Response	Primary leaders	Secondary leaders	Special leaders
Pastoral team involvement	52%	86%	64%
Regular check-ins with staff	54%	72%	57%
Curriculum adjustments (including a part-time or personalised timetable)	51%	68%	60%
Use of a safe space or nurture room for the pupil	55%	56%	59%
Tailored support plan, co-developed with parents or carers	47%	60%	58%
Behaviour intervention programme	37%	51%	57%
Involvement of multi-agency services or professionals	33%	50%	56%
Access to a mentor	18%	47%	23%
Tailored support plan, school-led without parental involvement	19%	28%	28%
Temporary placement off-site	6%	40%	6%
Peer support or buddying system	7%	13%	8%
One-to-one tutoring	5%	14%	19%
Not applicable – we have not suspended any pupils	25%	1%	26%
None of these	2%	3%	1%

Base: All primary leaders (n = 440), secondary leaders (n = 512) and special school leaders (n = 148). Data table reference = “suspensions_interventions”.

Seclusion and restraint

We asked leaders how many incidents their school had recorded which involved the use of seclusion or restraint (not involving force) with a pupil during the current academic year, starting in September 2025. Seclusion was defined as a non-disciplinary intervention that involved keeping a pupil confined to a place away from others and preventing them from leaving. Restraint was defined as a non-disciplinary intervention which immobilises a pupil or limits their movement, such as holding a pupil’s arms to their sides.

Figure 32: Number of recorded incidents involving the use of seclusion or restraint (not involving force) during the current academic year

Response	Primary leaders	Secondary leaders	Special leaders
0	30%	23%	17%
1 to 5	33%	28%	11%
6 to 10	10%	7%	10%
11 to 40	11%	3%	13%
41 to 100	2%	3%	11%
Over 100	1%	3%	13%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	13%	33%	26%

Base: All primary leaders (n = 440), secondary leaders (n = 512) and special school leaders (n = 148). Data table reference = “seclusionrestraint_number”.

We asked leaders whose school had recorded any incidents of seclusion or restraint in the current academic year how many minutes they had personally spent, on average, recording each incident. They were asked to consider the time spent gathering information and recording the initial write up.

Figure 33: Average time spent by leaders to record each incident of seclusion or restraint

Phase	1 to 15 minutes	16 to 30 minutes	31 to 45 minutes	Over 45 minutes	Don’t know	I didn’t personally record incidents	Total
Primary leaders	19%	27%	12%	26%	1%	16%	100%
Secondary leaders	30%	16%	8%	9%	2%	35%	100%
Special leaders	22%	13%	8%	29%	7%	20%	100%

Base: Primary leaders (n = 245), secondary leaders (n = 212) and special school leaders (n = 86) whose school had recorded any incidents of seclusion or restraint in the current academic year. The base for special school leaders is lower than 100 and the data should therefore be treated with caution. Data table reference = “seclusionrestraint_time”.

We asked leaders how many incidents their school had recorded which involved the use of reasonable force with a pupil during the current academic year, starting in September 2025.

Figure 34: Number of recorded incidents involving the use of reasonable force with a pupil during the current academic year

Response	Primary leaders	Secondary leaders	Special leaders
0	37%	32%	11%
1 to 5	32%	31%	12%
6 to 10	8%	4%	9%
11 to 40	8%	2%	15%
41 to 100	2%	0%	10%
Over 100	0%	0%	13%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	13%	30%	30%

Base: All primary leaders (n = 440), secondary leaders (n = 512) and special school leaders (n = 148). Data table reference = “seclusionrestraint_force”.

Knife crime as a safeguarding issue

We asked leaders whether their school was currently actively dealing with knife crime as a safeguarding issue. We defined this as a leader at the school having taken action, however small, as a result of recognising a safeguarding risk to a pupil in relation to knife crime. Special school leaders were not asked the questions on knife crime in all survey waves.

Figure 35: Proportion of leaders who said their school was currently dealing with knife crime as a safeguarding issue

Survey date	Primary	Secondary	Special
June 2026	12%	42%	16%
March 2026	17%	50%
January 2026			24%
December 2025	17%	45%
June 2025	18%	49%	26%
December 2024	8%	42%	19%
May 2024	16%	53%	25%
March 2024	11%	47%	25%
December 2023	9%	42%	18%
April 2023	9%	43%
January 2023	7%	47%
September 2022	11%	41%
May 2022	10%	51%
February 2022	8%	48%
October 2021	6%	34%

Base: All primary leaders (n = 440), secondary leaders (n = 512) and special school leaders (n = 148). Bases refer to most recent data: refer to previous reports and data tabulations for base sizes at each data point. Data table reference = “knife_action”.

The proportion of primary school leaders who reported that their school was currently actively dealing with knife crime as a safeguarding issue was lower in June 2026 (12%) than at the equivalent point in the previous academic year in June 2025 (18%). The proportion of secondary school leaders whose school was actively dealing with knife crime was also lower in June 2026 (42%) than in June 2025 (49%). Similarly, the proportion of special school leaders actively dealing with knife crime was lower in June 2026 (16%) than in June 2025 (26%).

We asked leaders who said they were actively dealing with knife crime as a safeguarding issue how many individual safeguarding incidents involving knife crime their school was actively dealing with at that moment in time. By combining the data from this question with administrative data about the number of pupils in each school, it is possible to calculate the number of individual knife crime safeguarding incidents per thousand pupils.

Among leaders who reported that their schools were actively dealing with knife crime as a safeguarding issue, 9% of primary school leaders and 37% of secondary school leaders preferred not to say how many incidents they were actively dealing with at that moment in time. Any schools with missing data, relating either to their number of pupils or their current number of knife crime safeguarding incidents, were excluded from the following calculation of the number of safeguarding incidents per thousand pupils. Data from special schools were also excluded from the quoted figures as they were only asked this question in a limited number of waves and the responding base size for special schools was very low (n = 18 for the June 2026 wave).

Figure 36: Average number of safeguarding incidents involving knife crime in schools actively dealing with knife crime incidents (per 1,000 pupils)

Base: Primary + secondary leaders (n = 180) and secondary leaders only (n = 137) in schools that were currently dealing with knife crime as a safeguarding issue and gave a valid response (>0) for the number of incidents they were currently dealing with. Bases refer to most recent data: refer to previous reports and data tabulations for base sizes at each data point. Primary leaders are not charted separately due to low base sizes. Data table reference = “knife_number”.

The line chart shows the average number of active knife crime safeguarding incidents per thousand pupils in schools who reported that they were currently actively dealing with knife crime as a safeguarding incident. The data spans waves of research conducted between October 2021 and June 2026. Over this period, for secondary schools only, the data ranged from a maximum of 2.1 incidents per 1,000 in April 2023, to a minimum of 0.7 incidents per 1,000 in December 2025.  The totals for primary and secondary schools combined ranged from 2.7 incidents per 1,000 in April 2023 to a minimum of 0.9 incidents per 1,000 in December 2024.

In those primary and secondary schools that were actively dealing with knife crime as a safeguarding issue, an average of 1.4 safeguarding incidents per thousand pupils were actively being dealt with at the time of the survey.

Sexual violence and harassment

We asked primary and secondary school leaders if they consented to answer questions on the topics of sexual violence and sexual harassment.

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

Those leaders who consented (93% of all leaders) were asked whether child-on-child sexual violence or sexual harassment was an issue that their school had actively dealt with since September 2025.

Figure 37: Whether leaders’ schools had actively dealt with child-on-child sexual violence or sexual harassment since September 2025

Phase	Yes	No	Prefer not to say	Don’t know	Total
Primary	29%	65%	1%	4%	100%
Secondary	70%	15%	1%	15%	100%
Special school	36%	58%	2%	4%	100%

Base: Primary leaders (n = 414), secondary leaders (n= 477) and special school leaders (n = 139) who consented to answer questions on the topic of sexual violence and sexual harassment against women and girls. Data table reference = “attitudegirls_action”.

We asked those leaders who said that their schools had actively dealt with child-on-child sexual violence or sexual harassment since September 2025 how many individual incidents their school had dealt with.

Figure 38: Number of individual incidents involving child-on-child sexual violence or sexual harassment schools had actively dealt with since September 2025

Phase	1 to 2	3 to 5	6 to 10	More than 10	Don’t know	Prefer not to say	Total
Primary	59%	26%	3%	5%	6%	1%	100%
Secondary	24%	26%	9%	4%	35%	2%	100%
Special school	35%	34%	5%	5%	18%	2%	100%

Base: Primary leaders (n = 116), secondary leaders (n = 334) and special school leaders (n = 54) whose school had actively dealt with child-on-child sexual violence or sexual harassment since September 2025. The base for special school leaders is lower than 100 and the data should therefore be treated with caution. Data table reference = “attitudegirls_number”.

Teacher and leader wellbeing

We asked teachers and leaders a series of questions about personal wellbeing validated by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). These questions are known as the ‘ONS4’ personal wellbeing measures and are answered using a scale from 0 to 10. For happiness, life satisfaction and the sense of things you do in life being worthwhile, a higher score is indicative of better personal wellbeing. For anxiety, a lower score is indicative of better personal wellbeing.

Figure 39 summarises the average ONS4 scores for teachers’ wellbeing across surveys conducted in this academic year and the previous two academic years.

Figure 39: Teachers’ average personal wellbeing scores over time

Survey date	Happiness	Worthwhile	Life satisfaction	Anxiety
June 2026	6.5	7.4	6.9	4.6
October 2025	6.5	7.6	7.0	4.6
June 2025	6.5	7.4	6.9	4.6
September 2024	6.5	7.8	7.0	4.6
May 2024	6.6	7.4	6.9	4.5
March 2024	6.4	7.4	6.8	4.5
December 2023	6.8	7.7	7.1	4.4

Base: All teachers in June 2026 (n = 1484), October 2025 (n = 2211), June 2025 (n = 1452), September 2024 (n = 2683), May 2024 (n = 1548), March 2024 (n = 1307), December 2023 (n = 3614). Data table references = “wellbeing_anxious”; “wellbeing_happy”; “wellbeing_worthwhile”; “wellbeing_satisfied”.

Figure 40: Teachers’ average personal wellbeing scores for happiness, worthwhile and life satisfaction, over time

Base: All teachers in June 2026 (n = 1484), October 2025 (n = 2211), June 2025 (n = 1452), September 2024 (n = 2683), May 2024 (n = 1548), March 2024 (n = 1307), December 2023 (n = 3614). Data table references = “wellbeing_happy”; “wellbeing_worthwhile”; “wellbeing_satisfied”.

The line chart shows the average ONS4 ‘happiness’, ‘worthwhile’ and ‘life satisfaction’ scores for teachers between December 2023 and June 2026. Over this period the happiness scores ranged from 6.4 in March 2024 to 6.8 in December 2023. The worthwhile scores ranged from 7.4 in March 2024, May 2024, June 2025 and June 2026, to 7.8 in September 2024. The life satisfaction scores ranged from 6.8 in March 2024 to 7.1 in December 2023.

Figure 41: Teachers’ average personal wellbeing scores for anxiety, over time

Base: All teachers in June 2026 (n = 1484), October 2025 (n = 2211), June 2025 (n = 1452), September 2024 (n = 2683), May 2024 (n = 1548), March 2024 (n = 1307), December 2023 (n = 3614). Data table references = “wellbeing_anxious”.

The line chart shows the average ONS4 ‘anxiety’ scores for teachers between December 2023 and June 2026. Over this period the anxiety scores ranged from a minimum of 4.4 in December 2023 to a maximum of 4.6 for all data points from September 2024 onwards. For anxiety, a lower score is indicative of better personal wellbeing.

For surveys conducted in this academic year and the previous two academic years, the average scores for leaders’ wellbeing are summarised in Figure 42.

Figure 42: Leaders’ average personal wellbeing measures scores over time

Survey date	Happiness	Worthwhile	Life satisfaction	Anxiety
June 2026	6.9	8.0	7.3	4.0
October 2025	6.8	8.0	7.3	4.3
June 2025	6.9	7.9	7.3	4.2
September 2024	6.8	7.9	7.3	4.3
May 2024	6.8	7.9	7.2	4.4
March 2024	6.8	8.0	7.4	3.7
December 2023	7.2	8.2	7.4	3.8

Base: All leaders in June 2026 (n = 1100), October 2025 (n = 2206), June 2025 (n = 1082), September 2024 (n = 2347), May 2024 (n = 846), March 2024 (n = 507), December 2023 (n = 1790). Data table references = “wellbeing_anxious”; “wellbeing_happy”; “wellbeing_worthwhile”; “wellbeing_satisfied”.

Figure 43: Leaders’ average personal wellbeing scores for happiness, worthwhile and life satisfaction, over time

Base: All leaders in June 2026 (n = 1100), October 2025 (n = 2206), June 2025 (n = 1082), September 2024 (n = 2347), May 2024 (n = 846), March 2024 (n = 507), December 2023 (n = 1790). Data table references = “wellbeing_happy”; “wellbeing_worthwhile”; “wellbeing_satisfied”.

The line chart shows the average ONS4 ‘happiness’, ‘worthwhile’ and ‘life satisfaction’ scores for leaders between December 2023 and June 2026. Over this period the happiness scores were 6.8 or 6.9 for every data point except December 2023, when a score of 7.2 was recorded. The worthwhile scores were 7.9 or 8.0 for every data point except December 2023, when a score of 8.2 was recorded. The life satisfaction scores ranged from 7.2 in May 2024 to 7.4 in December 2023 and March 2024.

Figure 44: Leaders’ average personal wellbeing scores for anxiety, over time

Base: All leaders in June 2026 (n = 1100), October 2025 (n = 2206), June 2025 (n = 1082), September 2024 (n = 2347), May 2024 (n = 846), March 2024 (n = 507), December 2023 (n = 1790). Data table references = “wellbeing_anxious”.

The line chart shows the average ONS4 ‘anxiety’ scores for leaders between December 2023 and June 2026. Over this period the anxiety scores ranged from a minimum of 3.7 in March 2024 to a maximum of 4.4 in May 2024. For anxiety, a lower score is indicative of better personal wellbeing.

We also asked all teachers and leaders how satisfied they were with their job. This question used a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means ‘completely dissatisfied’ and 7 means ‘completely satisfied’. For surveys conducted in this academic year and the previous two academic years, the proportion of teachers and leaders who said they were somewhat (5 out of 7), mostly (6 out of 7), or completely (7 out of 7) satisfied with their job are summarised in Figure 45.

Figure 45: Teachers and leaders who were somewhat, mostly or completely satisfied with their job

Survey date	Teacher	Leader
June 2026	64%	71%
October 2025	70%	75%
June 2025	64%	75%
September 2024	67%	76%
May 2024	62%	72%
March 2024	62%	77%
December 2023	68%	76%

Base: All teachers in June 2026 (n = 1484), October 2025 (n = 2211), June 2025 (n = 1452), September 2024 (n = 2683), May 2024 (n = 1548), March 2024 (n = 1307), December 2023 (n = 3614). All leaders in June 2026 (n = 1100), October 2025 (n = 2206), June 2025 (n = 1082), September 2024 (n = 2347), May 2024 (n = 846), March 2024 (n = 507), December 2023 (n = 1790). Data table reference = “wellbeing_jobsat”.

Figure 46: Teacher and leader job satisfaction

Base: All teachers in June 2026 (n = 1484), October 2025 (n = 2211), June 2025 (n = 1452), September 2024 (n = 2683), May 2024 (n = 1548), March 2024 (n = 1307), December 2023 (n = 3614). All leaders in June 2026 (n = 1100), October 2025 (n = 2206), June 2025 (n = 1082), September 2024 (n = 2347), May 2024 (n = 846), March 2024 (n = 507), December 2023 (n = 1790). Data table reference = “wellbeing_jobsat”.

The line chart shows that job satisfaction among teachers ranged from 62% in March 2024 and May 2024 to 70% in October 2025. It also shows that job satisfaction among leaders ranged from 71% in June 2026 to 77% in March 2024.

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 SEND. Almost all pupils in special schools have an education, health and care plan (EHCP).