Research and analysis

School and college voice: March 2026

Updated 25 June 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 March 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 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 March 2026 survey between 11 and 22 March 2026. The respondents were:

Audience	Responses
Primary school leaders	481
Secondary school leaders	571
Special school leaders	138
Primary school teachers	497
Secondary school teachers	489
Special school teachers	315

Questions with fewer than 30 responses (before weighting) are not included in this report, and base sizes of below 100 should be treated with caution. Complete findings can be found in the published data tables, which include more detail on how different groups answered each question.

The report makes some comparisons to previous surveys conducted in previous academic years, for example 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 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 technical report.

Topics covered in this survey

The survey included questions about:

• assessment at key stage 3 (KS3)
• screen time and social media
• writing framework implementation
• school measurement of extra-curricular activities
• continuing professional development (CPD)
• teaching assistants and education, health and care (EHC) plans
• schools’ ability to meet demand for wraparound childcare
• uptake of the school fruit and vegetable scheme
• ventilation and use of carbon dioxide (CO₂) monitors in school
• school experience of facilitating vaccination sessions
• Holocaust Memorial Day
• knife crime as a safeguarding issue
• behaviour

Assessment at key stage 3

Some schools request additional data when pupils move from primary to secondary school, beyond the data commonly shared (for example attendance, attainment and contact details).

We asked secondary school leaders what additional information their school requested when pupils moved from primary school (key stage 2) to secondary school (KS3). They were shown a list of information types and asked to select all that applied.

Figure 1: Additional information the school requests when pupils move from primary school to secondary school

Response	Leaders
Detailed information on learning or special educational needs or disabilities (SEND)	95%
Medical or health needs	92%
Pastoral or behavioural information	90%
Information on pupil interests or strengths relating to the curriculum	47%
Information on pupil interests or strengths outside of the curriculum	40%
Don’t know	3%
We do not request any additional information	1%

Base: Secondary leaders (n = 571). Data table reference = “ks3assessment_datarequest”.

We also asked secondary school leaders in which subjects, if any, their school carried out formal or summative assessment at KS3. Formal or summative assessment was defined as any assessment at the end of a topic, unit of learning, or year, to understand pupils’ progress. They were shown a list of subjects and asked to select all that applied.

Figure 2: Subjects in which the school carried out formal or summative assessment at KS3

Response	Leaders
Maths	98%
English	97%
Science	96%
Humanities (including history, geography, philosophy and religious studies)	92%
Modern languages	91%
Arts subjects (including music)	81%
Design and technology subjects	80%
Computing	79%
Other	18%
Don’t know	1%
School does not carry out any formal or summative assessment of pupils during KS3	1%

Base: Secondary leaders (n = 571). Data table reference = “ks3assessment_assessmentsubj”.

We then asked secondary school leaders for which subjects, if any, the school taught key stage 4 (KS4) content before year 10. They were shown a list of subjects and asked to select all that applied.

Figure 3: Subjects for which the school taught KS4 content before year 10

Response	Leaders
Science	51%
Maths	36%
English	31%
Humanities (including history, geography, philosophy and religious studies)	29%
Modern languages	21%
Arts subjects (including music)	18%
Computing	17%
Design and technology subjects	17%
Other	6%
Don’t know	7%
No subjects teach KS4 content prior to year 10	32%

Base: Secondary leaders (n = 571). Data table reference = “ks3assessment_ks4content”.

We asked teachers how frequently, if at all, they carried out any formal or summative assessment for the pupils they taught during KS3.

Figure 4: Frequency with which teachers carried out any formal or summative assessment for the pupils they taught during KS3

Response	Teachers
Once each year of KS3	4%
Twice each year of KS3	13%
Three times each year of KS3	22%
More often than three times each year	58%
At the start of KS3 only	0%
At the end of KS3 only	0%
Both at the start and end of KS3	0%
I do not assess any pupils at KS3 in my subject	3%

Base: Secondary teachers who taught KS3 pupils (n = 462). Data have been rebased to exclude secondary teachers who do not teach KS3 pupils. Data table reference = “ks3assessment_frequency”.

Among secondary school teachers who taught KS3 pupils, the majority (58%) used formal or summative assessments more than 3 times each year.

We also asked secondary school teachers whether they taught any KS4 content before year 10. The majority of teachers who taught KS3 pupils reported that they taught KS4 content before year 10 (65%).

Screen time and social media

We asked teachers to what extent they agreed or disagreed that the pupils they taught could distinguish trustworthy sources from misleading or incorrect content when they were online.

Figure 5: Extent to which teachers agreed that pupils could distinguish trustworthy sources from misleading or incorrect content when they were online

Phase	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know	Total
Primary	2%	26%	26%	28%	11%	7%	100%
Secondary	1%	14%	28%	40%	12%	4%	100%

Base: Primary teachers (n = 497) and secondary teachers (n = 489). Data table reference = “screenuse_trustworthy”.

A small minority of primary teachers (28%) and secondary teachers (16%) agreed or strongly agreed that pupils could identify trustworthy sources.

We also asked teachers to what extent they agreed or disagreed that, for the pupils they taught, screen use for leisure outside of school had a negative impact on their ability to engage in learning in school. Screen use was defined as meaning how long they used screens for, regardless of the type of device, the content they viewed and whether or not they were interacting with others.

Figure 6: Extent to which teachers agreed that screen use for leisure outside of school had a negative impact on pupils’ ability to engage in learning in school

Phase	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know	Total
Primary	35%	42%	14%	5%	1%	3%	100%
Secondary	38%	42%	13%	3%	1%	4%	100%

Base: Primary teachers (n = 497) and secondary teachers (n = 489). Data table reference = “screenuse_leisure”.

A large majority of primary teachers (78%) and secondary teachers (80%) agreed that screen use for leisure outside of school had a negative impact on pupils’ ability to engage in learning in school.

We then asked primary and secondary teachers how confident they felt in supporting the pupils they taught with decisions about their screen use.

Figure 7: Teacher confidence in supporting pupils with decisions about their screen use

Phase	Very confident	Fairly confident	Not very confident	Not at all confident	Don’t know	Total
Primary	22%	62%	11%	3%	2%	100%
Secondary	14%	54%	26%	5%	2%	100%

Base: Primary teachers (n = 497) and secondary teachers (n = 489). Data table reference = “screenuse_pupils”.

Overall, 84% of primary teachers and 68% of secondary teachers were very confident or fairly confident that they could support pupils with decisions about screen use.

We also asked primary and secondary teachers how confident they were in supporting parents with decisions about their child’s screen use.

Figure 8: Teacher confidence in supporting parents with decisions about their child’s screen use

Phase	Very confident	Fairly confident	Not very confident	Not at all confident	Don’t know	Total
Primary	11%	54%	25%	8%	2%	100%
Secondary	7%	40%	38%	12%	3%	100%

Base: Primary teachers (n = 497) and secondary teachers (n = 489). Data table reference = “screenuse_parents”.

Overall, 64% of primary teachers and 47% of secondary teachers were very confident or fairly confident in supporting parents with decisions about their child’s screen use.

We asked teachers what, if anything, they would like more information on to help them support pupils and their parents. They were shown a list of potential options and asked to select all that applied.

Figure 9: What, if anything, teachers would like more information on to help them support pupils and their parents

Response	Primary	Secondary
Tools available to parents to control children’s screen time	79%	63%
How to achieve a better balance of online and offline activities	58%	64%
External support to talk to children about staying safe online	41%	40%
How to talk to children about concerning content they may see online	33%	43%
Tools to help children stay safe online	35%	37%
None of the above	6%	10%
Don’t know	1%	4%

Base: Primary teachers (n = 497) and secondary teachers (n = 489). Data table reference = “screenuse_information”.

Writing framework implementation

The writing framework is non-statutory guidance designed to support schools in developing a clear, consistent, and evidence-informed approach to teaching writing. It brings together expectations, principles, and practical advice to help teachers and leaders plan for strong progression, effective teaching, and coherent whole school practice.

We asked primary and secondary school teachers and leaders whether they were aware of the writing framework published by DfE in July 2025.

Figure 10: Whether teachers and leaders were aware of the writing framework published by DfE in July 2025

Phase	Know a lot about it	Know a little about it	Only heard the name	Not aware	Don’t know	Total
Primary leaders	62%	32%	3%	2%	0%	100%
Secondary leaders	6%	38%	23%	32%	0%	100%
Primary teachers	30%	47%	13%	10%	0%	100%
Secondary teachers	3%	21%	24%	50%	1%	100%

Base: Primary leaders (n = 481), secondary leaders (n = 571), primary teachers (n = 497) and secondary teachers (n = 489). Data table reference = “writingframework_aware”.

Almost all primary leaders (98%) and primary teachers (90%) had at least heard of the writing framework. A large majority of secondary leaders (67%) and about half of secondary teachers (48%) had at least heard of the writing framework.

We asked primary leaders who knew a lot or a little about the writing framework what would be beneficial to help them implement the writing framework more effectively. We showed a list of potential options and asked them to select all that applied.

Figure 11: What would be beneficial to help leaders implement the writing framework more effectively

Response	Leaders
Online and on demand training materials	63%
Opportunities to observe best practice	57%
In person CPD training modules	46%
Formal support through English Hubs	43%
Support from other schools via a school-to-school network	34%
Support from other schools via writing showcase visits	22%
Other	4%
Not applicable – I do not need help to implement the writing framework	10%

Base: Primary leaders who knew a lot or a little about the writing framework (n = 451). Data table reference = “writingframework_ben”.

We asked primary teachers, who knew a lot or a little about the writing framework, which areas of the school’s writing curriculum they were currently focussing on as a result of the guidance. They were shown a list of potential focus areas and asked to select all that applied.

Figure 12: Areas of the school’s writing curriculum teachers were focussing on as a result of the writing framework

Response	Teachers
Handwriting	76%
Spelling	50%
Composition	38%
Pupils who need more support	36%
Writing across the curriculum	36%
Vocabulary	36%
Grammar and punctuation	35%
The reception year	35%
Sentence instruction	31%
Leadership of writing	12%
None of these	2%

Base: Primary teachers who knew a lot or a little about the writing framework (n = 383). Data table reference = “ writingframework_focus”.

We also asked primary teachers who knew a lot or a little about the writing framework which areas of it, if any, they would like more support with. Teachers were shown a list of potential areas of support and asked to select all that applied.

Figure 13: Areas of the writing framework teachers would like more support with

Response	Teachers
Pupils who need more support	46%
Spelling	25%
Writing across the curriculum	24%
Composition	21%
Handwriting	19%
Sentence instruction	19%
Grammar and punctuation	17%
Leadership of writing	14%
Vocabulary	12%
The reception year	12%
None of these	18%

Base: Primary teachers who knew a lot or a little about the writing framework (n = 383). Data table reference = “ writingframework_support”.

School measurement of extra-curricular activities

We asked leaders what data the school routinely collected on extra-curricular activities offered by the school, whether delivered by school staff or external providers. They were shown a list of different types of data and asked to select all that applied.

Figure 14: Data routinely collected by schools on the extra-curricular activities they offered

Response	Primary	Secondary	Special
Number of different activities offered to pupils	80%	91%	39%
Total number of pupils taking part in each activity	81%	85%	38%
Type of different activities offered to pupils	73%	84%	34%
Characteristics of pupils taking part, such as sex, pupil premium, free school meals (FSM), SEND or ethnicity	68%	77%	24%
Individual pupils who take part in each activity	63%	76%	32%
Times the activities are offered to pupils	49%	69%	26%
Cost of each activity to pupils and parents	45%	34%	13%
Other	0%	2%	2%
Don’t know	1%	2%	5%
Not applicable – our school does not offer extra-curricular activities as a regular activity	1%	0%	30%
Not applicable – our school does not collect data on extra-curricular activities as a regular activity	6%	3%	17%

Base: All primary leaders (n = 481), secondary leaders (n = 571) and special school leaders (n = 138). Data table reference = “enrichment_data”.

We asked leaders, whose school routinely collected data on extra-curricular activities, to consider all the ways they used the data. They were shown a list of options and asked to select all that applied.

Figure 15: How schools used the data collected on extra-curricular activities

Response	Primary	Secondary	Special
Look at participation differences by pupil characteristics, such as sex, pupil premium, FSM, SEND or ethnicity	71%	81%	48%
Review the activities to identify any changes needed to the offer	69%	60%	67%
Identify trends and patterns in participation rates by activity	57%	72%	48%
Target interventions for pupils who are not participating	51%	51%	42%
Link participation to wider outcomes, such as attendance and attainment	33%	38%	33%
Other	2%	2%	7%
Don’t know	1%	5%	3%
Not applicable – we do not currently use the data	3%	5%	4%

Base: Primary leaders (n = 436), secondary leaders (n = 545) and special school leaders (n = 68) whose school routinely collected data on extra-curricular activities. The base for special school leaders is lower than 100 and the data should therefore be treated with caution. Data table reference = “enrichment_datause”.

We also asked leaders, whose school routinely collected data on extra-curricular activities, to whom the data was communicated. They were asked to select all that applied from a list of different groups of people.

Figure 16: Who the school communicated the data collected on extra-curricular activities to

Response	Primary	Secondary	Special
Senior leadership teams	78%	87%	79%
Governors	70%	71%	69%
Stakeholders	16%	24%	20%
Parents	17%	20%	20%
Pupils	6%	23%	15%
External providers	10%	5%	13%
Other	6%	4%	4%
Don’t know	1%	4%	0%
Not applicable – we do not communicate the data	4%	3%	9%

Base: Primary leaders (n = 436), secondary leaders (n = 545) and special school leaders (n = 68) whose school routinely collected data on extra-curricular activities. The base for special school leaders is lower than 100 and the data should therefore be treated with caution. Data table reference = “enrichment_datacommunicate”.

Continuing professional development

In September 2022 the National Institute of Teaching (NIoT) was established as one of the lead providers of professional development for teachers and trainee teachers, with a specific function to research and disseminate ‘what works’ in teacher and leader development.

We asked primary and secondary leaders and teachers whether they were aware of NIoT.

Figure 17: Whether leaders and teachers were aware of NIoT

Phase	Know a lot about it	Know a little about it	Only heard the name	I have never heard of it	Don’t know	Total
Leaders	13%	43%	22%	22%	0%	100%
Teachers	6%	26%	30%	36%	1%	100%

Base: Primary and secondary leaders (n = 1052) and teachers (n = 986). Data table reference = “niot_aware”.

A large majority of leaders (78%) and the majority of teachers (63%) had at least heard of NIoT. Conversely, 22% of leaders and 36% of teachers had not heard of NIoT.

Among leaders, the proportion who said that they had at least heard of NIoT was higher in March 2026 (78%) than in March 2025 (73%). Among teachers, the proportion who said that they had at least heard of NIoT was also higher in March 2026 (63%) than in March 2025 (55%).

We asked leaders and teachers who knew a lot or a little about NIoT what they thought were the main roles of the institute. They were shown a list of potential roles and asked to select all that applied.

Figure 18: Perceived roles of NIoT, as reported by leaders and teachers

Response	Leaders	Teachers
Deliver national professional qualifications (NPQs)	52%	47%
Deliver initial teacher training (ITT)	50%	46%
Conduct research around professional development	47%	43%
Deliver the early career teacher entitlement (ECTE)	45%	38%
Communicate new research	35%	35%
Deliver the School Trust CEO programme	10%	8%
Lobbying	4%	6%
Other	0%	1%
Don’t know	24%	27%

Base: Primary and secondary leaders (n = 838) and teachers (n = 613) who knew a lot or a little about NIoT. Data table reference = “ niot_roles”.

Among leaders, the proportion who said that the roles of NIoT included delivering NPQs was higher in March 2026 (52%) than in March 2025 (44%). The proportion of leaders who said they did not know the role of NIoT was lower in March 2026 (24%) than in March 2025 (30%). The data relating to other potential roles of NIoT remained broadly stable over the same period. It should be noted that there were some changes to the list of options presented to leaders in March 2025 and March 2026.

Among teachers, the data relating to NIoT’s potential roles remained broadly stable between March 2025 and March 2026. Again, it should be noted that there were some changes to the list of options presented to teachers in each of these surveys.

Teaching school hubs (TSHs) are school-led centres of excellence for teacher and leadership training and development. These hubs became fully operational in September 2021.

We asked primary and secondary leaders and teachers how much they knew about TSHs and the programmes they deliver.

Figure 19: How much leaders and teachers knew about TSHs and the programmes they deliver

Phase	A lot	A little	I’ve only heard of the name	Not heard of them	Total
Leaders	22%	55%	16%	8%	100%
Teachers	9%	35%	26%	30%	100%

Base: Primary and secondary leaders (n = 1052) and teachers (n = 986). Data table reference = “tsh_aware”.

Almost all leaders (92%) and a large majority of teachers (70%) had at least heard of TSHs and the programmes they deliver. Conversely, 8% of leaders and 30% of teachers had not heard of TSHs.

Among leaders, there was no change in the proportion who had at least heard of TSHs between March 2025 and March 2026.

Among teachers, the proportion who had at least heard of TSHs was higher in March 2026 (70%) than in March 2025 (61%).

NPQs are professional development courses for teachers and leaders to develop their knowledge and skills in school leadership and specialist areas of teaching practice.

We asked all teachers and leaders which NPQs they had heard of. They were shown a list of NPQs and asked to select all that applied.

Figure 20: Which NPQs leaders and teachers had heard of

Response	Leaders	Teachers
Senior leadership (NPQSL)	97%	75%
Headship (NPQH)	97%	67%
Special educational needs co-ordinators (NPQSENCO)	84%	49%
Executive leadership (NPQEL)	68%	16%
Leading behaviour and culture (NPQLBC)	64%	32%
Leading teaching (NPQLT)	63%	36%
Leading literacy (NPQLL)	59%	29%
Early years leadership (NPQEYL)	55%	24%
Leading teacher development (NPQLTD)	45%	25%
Leading primary mathematics (NPQLPM)	38%	19%
Early headship coaching offer (EHCO)	23%	7%
None of the above	0%	10%

Base: All leaders (n = 1190) and teachers (n = 1301). Data table reference = “npq_aware”.

Among teachers, the proportion who were aware of the NPQ for senior leadership (NPQSL) was higher in March 2026 (75%) than in February 2024 (69%) when the question was last asked. The proportion of teachers aware of the NPQ for headship (NPQH) was also higher in March 2026 (67%) than in February 2024 (59%). The proportion aware of the NPQ for special educational needs co-ordinators (NPQSENCO) was also higher in March 2026 (49%) than in February 2024 (29%).

The proportion aware of the NPQ for leading teacher development (NPQLTD) was lower in March 2026 (25%) than in February 2024 (30%). The proportion of teachers who were aware of none of the NPQs was also lower in March 2026 (10%) than in February 2024 (17%). Awareness of the other NPQs among teachers remained broadly stable over the same period.

The government amended the SEND Regulations 2014, introducing the NPQ as the mandatory SENCO qualification from 1 September 2024. The 3-year window to complete the mandatory qualification after taking up a SENCO post remained.

We asked primary and secondary school leaders whether they were aware that the NPQ for SENCOs has been the mandatory qualification for new SENCOs since 1 September 2024.

Figure 21: Leaders’ awareness that the NPQ for SENCOs has been the mandatory qualification for new SENCOs since 1 September 2024

Phase	I know a lot about it	I know a little about it	I know nothing about it	I had not heard of it	Total
Primary leaders	49%	36%	10%	5%	100%
Secondary leaders	29%	40%	12%	18%	100%

Base: Primary leaders (n = 481) and secondary leaders (n = 571). Data table reference = “cpd_npqaware”.

Overall, 95% of primary leaders and 82% of secondary leaders had at least heard that the NPQ for SENCOs was mandatory for new SENCOs since 1 September 2024. Conversely, 5% of primary leaders and 18% of secondary leaders had not heard this.

Teaching assistants and education, health and care plans

We asked primary and secondary teachers how many teaching assistants (TAs), if any, they had in the classroom during the most recent class they taught.

Figure 22: How many TAs were in the classroom during the most recent class taught

Phase	0	1	2	3 or more	Total
Primary	32%	53%	13%	2%	100%
Secondary	79%	19%	2%	0%	100%

Base: Primary teachers (n = 497) and secondary teachers (n = 489). Data table reference = “tas_number”.

We asked teachers who had a TA present in the classroom during their most recent class, how many TAs were there to support a specific pupil or group of pupils with a documented EHC plan. They were not able to select a ‘don’t know’ option at this question.

Figure 23: Number of TAs who were there to support a specific pupil or group of pupils with an EHC plan, in classrooms where a TA was present

Phase	0	1	2	3 or more	Total
Primary	41%	51%	6%	2%	100%
Secondary	8%	83%	7%	1%	100%

Base: Primary teachers (n = 334) and secondary teachers (n = 103) who had a teaching assistant in the most recent class that they taught. Data table reference = “tas_ehcp”.

We asked primary and secondary leaders what proportion of TAs in their school were employed for at least some of their time to meet requirements in pupils’ EHC plans. They were asked only to include TAs who are directly employed by the school rather than those employed by a multi academy trust or local authority.

Figure 24: Proportion of TAs in the school employed to meet requirements in pupils’ EHC plans

Proportion	Primary	Secondary
100%	20%	30%
75 to 99%	28%	23%
50 to 74%	22%	12%
25 to 49%	15%	3%
Less than 25%	8%	3%
No TAs	1%	2%
Not sure	5%	27%

Base: Primary leaders (n = 481) and secondary leaders (n = 571). Data table reference = “tas_proportion”.

Schools’ ability to meet demand for wraparound childcare

We asked primary and special school leaders how often, since the start of the academic year in September 2025, the school had been able to fully meet the demand from parents for wraparound childcare. We defined ‘fully meet’ as being able to meet the number of places or hours requested by parents.

Figure 25: How often school had been able to fully meet the demand from parents for wraparound childcare since September 2025

Phase	All of the time	Most of the time	Some of the time	None of the time	Don’t know	Total
Leaders	51%	32%	11%	3%	3%	100%

Base: Primary and special school leaders whose school offered wraparound childcare (n = 619). Data have been rebased to exclude schools which did not offer wraparound childcare. Data table reference = “wraparound_meetdemand”.

The frequency with which schools that offered wraparound childcare were able to fully meet the demand from parents remained broadly stable compared with January 2025.

We asked primary and special school leaders, who reported that their school was not able to fully meet the demand for wraparound childcare, why their school was unable to fully meet demand all of the time. They were shown a list of potential reasons and asked to select all that applied.

Figure 26: Reasons why the school was unable to fully meet the demand for wraparound childcare all of the time

Response	Leaders
We are unable to recruit enough staff	42%
We do not have enough space on the school premises	42%
We cannot meet the needs of low-income parents (for example, subsidised costs)	24%
We cannot meet the needs of pupils with SEND	23%
Don’t know	14%

Base: Primary and special school leaders who reported that their school was not able to fully meet the demand for wraparound childcare (n = 222). Data table reference = “wraparound_whynotmeetdemand”.

Uptake of the school fruit and vegetable scheme

The non-statutory school fruit and vegetable scheme provides a free piece of fruit or vegetable every school day to children who are between 4 and 6 years old and attend a fully state funded primary school. Products are delivered to schools, which then decide how they are distributed.

The questions on this topic were asked of all primary leaders and any special school leaders with 4- to 6-year-olds in their school. We asked how often in the current academic term, if at all, their school had leftover produce from the scheme after distributing to the 4- to 6-year-olds each week.

Figure 27: How often leaders’ schools had leftover produce after distributing to 4- to 6-year-olds each week

Phase	Every day	Most days	Some days	Rarely	Never	Don’t know	We do not participate in the scheme
Primary	10%	16%	35%	25%	3%	4%	7%
Special	6%	12%	21%	26%	12%	10%	14%

Base: Primary leaders (n = 481) and special school leaders (n = 99) with 4- to 6-year-olds in the school. The base for special school leaders is lower than 100 and the data should therefore be treated with caution. Data table reference = “fruitveg_frequency”.

We asked leaders who reported that they had leftover produce from the school fruit and vegetable scheme what the school did with the leftover fruit and vegetables. They were shown a list of potential actions and asked to select all that applied.

Figure 28: What schools did with the leftover fruit and vegetables

Response	Primary	Special
Distribute to pupils in other year groups	79%	75%
Give to pupils to take home	53%	20%
Re-offer on subsequent days	51%	30%
Offer to staff	20%	19%
Dispose of (waste or compost)	13%	10%
Add to the catering service	6%	6%
Other	3%	2%

Base: Primary leaders (n = 410), and special school leaders (n = 66) with 4- to 6-year-olds in their school who reported ever having leftover fruit and vegetables. The base for special school leaders is lower than 100 and the data should therefore be treated with caution. Data table reference = “fruitveg_use”.

Ventilation and use of CO₂ monitors in school

Between 2021 to 2023, DfE provided all state-funded education and childcare settings with CO₂ monitors to help them monitor ventilation.

We asked teachers how often, on average, they had checked the readings of a CO₂ monitor in their teaching space this academic year, if at all.

Figure 29: How often teachers checked the readings of a CO₂ monitor in their teaching space this academic year

Frequency	Primary	Secondary	Special
At least once per lesson	2%	4%	2%
At least once in the morning and once in the afternoon	3%	2%	3%
Daily	5%	4%	8%
Weekly	3%	2%	5%
Less than weekly	13%	7%	10%
Never	40%	39%	37%
Do not have a CO2 monitor in my teaching space	26%	38%	27%
Don’t know	9%	4%	9%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 497), secondary teachers (n = 489) and special school teachers (n = 315). Data table reference = “co2monitors_check”.

Overall, 12% of primary teachers, 12% of secondary teachers and 17% of special school teachers said that they checked the readings of a CO₂ monitor in their teaching space at least weekly.

We asked teachers who reported having a CO₂ monitor in their teaching space whether this was the CO₂ monitor that DfE provided between 2021 and 2023. A minority of primary teachers (38%) and a small minority of secondary teachers (18%) and special school teachers (24%) said that it was the monitor provided by DfE. There was a high level of uncertainty in responses to this question, with 58% of primary teachers and 72% of secondary teachers saying that they did not know whether it was the CO₂ monitor provided by DfE.

We then asked teachers whether they knew how to use a CO₂ monitor to manage ventilation in their teaching space, for example knowing what actions to take when CO₂ levels change. This question was asked of those teachers who reported having a CO₂ monitor in their teaching space and knew how frequently they used it.

Overall, 41% of primary teachers, 31% of secondary teachers and 40% of special school teachers said that they knew how to use a CO₂ monitor to manage ventilation. A further 12% of primary teachers, 16% of secondary teachers and 20% of special school teachers said that they were not responsible for reading the CO₂ monitor in their teaching space.

We asked all teachers to what extent, if at all, they were aware of the impact of good ventilation and air quality on the learning environment.

Figure 30: Extent to which teachers were aware of the impact of good ventilation and air quality on the learning environment

Phase	To a great extent	To some extent	To a small extent	Not at all	Total
Primary	26%	49%	17%	8%	100%
Secondary	25%	43%	18%	13%	100%
Special	33%	47%	12%	8%	100%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 497), secondary teachers (n = 489) and special teachers (n = 315). Data table reference = “co2monitors_healthy”.

Overall, 92% of primary teachers, 87% of secondary teachers and 92% of special school teachers agreed, to at least a small extent, that they were aware of the impact of good ventilation and air quality on the learning environment.

We asked teachers who had a CO₂ monitor in their teaching space, to what extent they agreed or disagreed that a CO₂ monitor helped them to improve ventilation.

Figure 31: Extent to which teachers agreed or disagreed that a CO₂ monitor helped them to improve ventilation

Phase	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don’t know	Total
Primary	5%	19%	29%	17%	10%	20%	100%
Secondary	6%	19%	31%	12%	8%	24%	100%
Special	10%	18%	31%	9%	3%	30%	100%

Base: Primary teachers (n = 368), secondary teachers (n = 302) and special school teachers (n = 235) who had a CO₂ monitor in their teaching space. Data table reference = “co2monitor_ventilation”.

Overall, 24% of primary teachers, 25% of secondary teachers and 27% of special school teachers agreed or strongly agreed that a CO₂ monitor helped them to improve ventilation.

We asked all teachers what, if anything, had prevented them from using a CO₂ monitor in their teaching space to date. They were shown a list of potential reasons and asked to select all that applied.

Figure 32: What, if anything, had prevented teachers from using a CO₂ monitor in the teaching space

Response	Primary	Secondary	Special
Too many other priorities in the classroom	36%	21%	25%
There are not enough CO2 monitors	15%	24%	15%
Opening windows to lower CO2 levels makes the classroom too cold	11%	12%	11%
Issues with charging or replacing batteries	7%	3%	3%
I don’t see the value in using the monitors	6%	3%	2%
Faulty monitors or parts missing	6%	3%	4%
Other	22%	31%	30%
Don’t know	27%	26%	32%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 497), secondary teachers (n = 489) and special school teachers (n = 315). Data table reference = “co2monitor_prevent”.

We asked all teachers what, if anything, had prevented them from improving ventilation. They were shown a list of potential barriers and asked to select all that applied.

Figure 33: What prevented teachers from improving ventilation

Response	Teachers
Cold temperature	47%
Noise	34%
Other weather conditions (for example, strong winds or heavy rain)	30%
Windows that do not open enough or are difficult to open	21%
No CO2 monitor	21%
Windows that do not open	14%
Not enough windows	11%
Lack of awareness	9%
Concerns about the safety of children	5%
Other	5%
No particular reason	4%
Nothing has prevented me	18%

Base: All teachers (n = 1301). Data table reference = “co2monitors_improve”.

School experience of facilitating vaccination sessions

School Age Immunisation Services (SAIS) providers deliver several vaccines in schools. These programmes depend on close working relationships between schools, school nurses, and SAIS providers. Questions on the topic of vaccination were asked to better understand schools’ experiences of helping to facilitate vaccination sessions, to identify improvements that could make this easier, and improve vaccination uptake.

In March 2025, the government updated its guidance on supporting immunisation programmes. Since the March 2026 survey was conducted, the guidance was further updated in April 2026.

We asked leaders whether they were aware of the supporting immunisation programmes guidance.

Figure 34: Awareness of the supporting immunisation programmes guidance among leaders

Phase	Know a lot about it	Know a little about it	Only heard the name	No	Don’t know	Total
Primary leaders	10%	38%	18%	32%	2%	100%
Secondary leaders	8%	33%	17%	41%	2%	100%
Special school leaders	14%	41%	14%	30%	1%	100%

Base: All primary leaders (n = 481), secondary leaders (n = 571) and special school leaders (n = 138). Data table reference = “vaccinations_guidanceaware”.

Overall, 66% of primary leaders, 57% of secondary leaders and 70% of special school leaders had at least heard of the supporting immunisation programmes guidance.

We also asked teachers whether they were aware of the supporting immunisation programmes guidance.

Figure 35: Awareness of the supporting immunisation programmes guidance among teachers

Phase	Know a lot about it	Know a little about it	Only heard the name	No	Don’t know	Total
Primary teachers	3%	23%	18%	54%	2%	100%
Secondary teachers	4%	23%	15%	57%	0%	100%
Special teachers	4%	26%	19%	47%	4%	100%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 497), secondary teachers (n = 489) and special school teachers (n = 315). Data table reference = “vaccinations_view”.

A minority of primary teachers (44%) and secondary teachers (42%) and about half of special school teachers (49%) had heard of the supporting immunisation programmes guidance.

We asked leaders what, if any, were the most important challenges or barriers that the school had experienced in supporting the delivery of vaccinations in school. They were shown a list of potential challenges or barriers and asked to select up to 5 answers.

Figure 36: The most important challenges or barriers in supporting the delivery of vaccinations in school, as reported by leaders

Response	Primary	Secondary	Special
Gathering consent from parents or carers	51%	54%	54%
Parental attitudes towards vaccination	49%	39%	35%
Flexibility in the date, time or number of vaccination visits	26%	40%	23%
Having the right space to support vaccination sessions	29%	30%	28%
Having enough staff to support vaccination sessions	17%	36%	26%
Communication and information exchange with immunisation teams	22%	29%	23%
Pupils not wanting to have the vaccines despite parental consent	21%	22%	57%
The impact of vaccination sessions on teaching	19%	31%	6%
Pupil absence	17%	26%	27%
The availability and quality of vaccination information for parents and pupils	6%	4%	3%
The availability and quality of government guidance on the role of schools	2%	1%	3%
No challenges	12%	5%	14%
Don’t know	6%	11%	3%

Base: All primary leaders (n = 481), secondary leaders (n = 571) and special school leaders (n = 138). Data table reference = “vaccinations_challenges”.

We also asked teachers what, if any, were the most important challenges or barriers that the school had experienced in supporting the delivery of vaccinations in school. They were shown a list of potential challenges or barriers and asked to select up to 5 answers.

Figure 37: The most important challenges or barriers in supporting the delivery of vaccinations in school, as reported by teachers

Response	Primary	Secondary	Special
Parental attitudes towards vaccination	54%	39%	36%
Gathering consent from parents or carers	46%	37%	42%
Pupils not wanting to have the vaccines despite parental consent	24%	28%	56%
Pupil absence	23%	31%	22%
Having enough staff to support vaccination sessions	16%	14%	22%
The impact of vaccination sessions on teaching	11%	19%	10%
Flexibility in the date, time or number of vaccination visits	10%	16%	17%
Having the right space to support vaccination sessions	11%	11%	23%
Communication and information exchange with the immunisation team	9%	7%	14%
The availability and quality of vaccination information for parents and pupils	8%	6%	5%
The availability and quality of government guidance on the role of schools	3%	2%	1%
No challenges	9%	6%	7%
Don’t know	19%	34%	13%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 497), secondary teachers (n = 489) and special teachers (n = 315). Data table reference = “vaccinations_challenges”.

Holocaust Memorial Day

We asked leaders whether their school had marked, in any way, the most recent Holocaust Memorial Day. Overall, 81% of secondary schools, 30% of primary schools and 30% of special schools reported having done so.

We asked leaders whose school had marked Holocaust Memorial Day which organisations, if any, the school worked with to support the event. Leaders were shown a list of potential organisations and asked to select all that applied.

Figure 38: Organisations that leaders’ schools worked with to support marking Holocaust Memorial Day

Response	Leaders
Holocaust Memorial Day Trust	31%
Holocaust Educational Trust	24%
A local organisation	11%
The National Holocaust Centre and Museum	9%
University College London’s Centre for Holocaust Education	3%
Other	11%
My school does not work with any organisations to mark Holocaust Memorial Day	22%
Don’t know	20%

Base: All leaders whose school marked the most recent Holocaust Memorial Day (n = 635). Data table reference = “holocaustmemorial_orgs”.

We asked leaders whose school had not marked the most recent Holocaust Memorial Day what, if any, would be the main barriers to doing so in the future. Leaders were shown a list of potential barriers and asked to select all that applied.

Figure 39: Barriers, if any, leaders reported to marking Holocaust Memorial Day in the future

Response	Leaders
Timetabling constraints	27%
Competing events or operational pressures	23%
Staff availability, capacity or specialism	18%
Financial pressures	6%
Other	21%
No barriers	24%
Don’t know	11%

Base: All leaders whose school did not mark the most recent Holocaust Memorial Day (n = 504). Data table reference = “holocaustmemorial_notmarked”.

We asked leaders whose school had marked the most recent Holocaust Memorial Day how their school chose to observe it. Leaders were shown a list of potential options and asked to select all that applied.

Figure 40: How leaders’ schools chose to observe Holocaust Memorial Day

Response	Leaders
Assembly (either whole school or smaller cohort)	82%
Curriculum-linked lessons	43%
Tutor-time	31%
An event facilitated by an external organisation or speaker	19%
A whole-school moment of reflection	15%
Other	5%

Base: All leaders whose school had marked the most recent Holocaust Memorial Day (635). Data table reference = “holocaustmemorial_observe”.

Knife crime as a safeguarding issue

We asked primary and secondary school 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.

Figure 41: Proportion of leaders who said their school was currently dealing with knife crime as a safeguarding issue

Survey date	Primary	Secondary
March 2026	17%	50%
December 2025	17%	45%
June 2025	18%	49%
December 2024	8%	42%
May 2024	16%	53%
March 2024	11%	47%
December 2023	9%	42%
April 2023	9%	43%
January 2023	7%	47%
September 2022	11%	41%
May 2022	10%	51%
February 2022	8%	48%

Base: Primary leaders (n = 481) and secondary leaders (n = 571). Bases refer to most recent data: refer to previous reports for base sizes at each data point. Data table reference = “knife_action”.

Figure 42: Proportion of leaders who said their school was currently dealing with knife crime as a safeguarding issue

Base: Primary leaders (n = 481) and secondary leaders (n = 571). Bases refer to most recent data: refer to previous reports for base sizes at each data point. Data table reference = “knife_action”.

The proportion of secondary school leaders who reported that their school was currently actively dealing with knife crime as a safeguarding issue was higher in March 2026 (50%) than in December 2025 (45%) when the question was previously asked. Over the same period, there was no change in the proportion of primary school leaders who reported such issues (17% in both December 2025 and March 2026).

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, 25% of primary school leaders and 47% 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.

In those schools that were actively dealing with knife crime as a safeguarding issue, an average of 1.2 safeguarding incidents per thousand pupils were actively being dealt with at the time of the survey.

Behaviour

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

Figure 43: 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	6%	44%	21%	18%	11%	1%	100%
Secondary	7%	45%	21%	20%	6%	1%	100%
Special	11%	40%	28%	15%	5%	1%	100%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 497), secondary teachers (n = 489) and special school teachers (315). Data table reference = “behaviour_rating”.

Overall, 49% of primary school teachers, 52% of secondary school teachers and 51% of special school teachers said that the behaviour of pupils at their school over the previous week had been good or very good.

The proportion of primary school teachers that rated behaviour as good or very good was lower in March 2026 (49%) than in December 2025 (58%) when the question was last asked. Opinions of behaviour among secondary school teachers remained broadly stable over the same period. Behaviour ratings among special school teachers remained broadly stable between March 2026 and May 2024, when the question was last asked of special schools.

We also asked school leaders how good or poor pupil behaviour was over the previous week of term.

Figure 44: 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	25%	58%	10%	6%	1%	1%	100%
Secondary	21%	54%	13%	9%	2%	1%	100%
Special	31%	48%	17%	4%	0%	1%	100%

Base: All primary leaders (n = 481), secondary leaders (n = 571) and special school leaders (n = 138). Data table reference = “behaviour_rating”.

A large majority of primary school leaders (83%), secondary school leaders (75%) and special school leaders (78%) rated pupil behaviour over the previous week of term as good or very good.

The proportion of primary and secondary school leaders that rated behaviour as good or very good was broadly stable between December 2025 and March 2026. The proportion of special school leaders rating behaviour as good or very good was also broadly stable when comparing March 2026 with May 2024, when this question was previously asked of special schools.

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

Figure 45: How often teachers felt their school had been calm and orderly over the previous week of term

Phase	Every day	Most days	Some days	Never	Don’t know	Total
Primary	11%	41%	39%	8%	1%	100%
Secondary	12%	43%	35%	9%	1%	100%
Special	10%	42%	40%	7%	1%	100%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 497), secondary teachers (n = 489) and special school teachers (n = 315). Data table reference = “behaviour_calm”.

Overall, 51% of primary school teachers, 55% of secondary school teachers and 52% of special school teachers said their school had been calm and orderly on every day or most days in the past week of term.

In December 2025, the proportion of primary school teachers (56%) and secondary school teachers (64%) that said their school had been calm and orderly was higher than in March 2026. The proportion of special school teachers reporting that their school was calm and orderly was lower in May 2024 (47%) than in March 2026.

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

Figure 46: How often leaders felt their school had been calm and orderly over the previous week of term

Phase	Every day	Most days	Some days	Never	Don’t know	Total
Primary	30%	56%	13%	1%	0%	100%
Secondary	35%	47%	16%	3%	0%	100%
Special	31%	46%	19%	3%	1%	100%

Base: All primary leaders (n = 481), secondary leaders (n = 571) and special school leaders (n = 138). Data table reference = “behaviour_calm”.

A large majority of primary school leaders (85%), secondary school leaders (81%) and special school leaders (77%) said their school had been calm and orderly on every day or most days over the past week of term.

The proportion of primary and secondary leaders that said their school had been calm and orderly was broadly the same in March 2026 as it was in December 2025. The proportion of special school leaders reporting that their school had been calm and orderly was also broadly stable between March 2026 and May 2024.

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

Figure 47: Proportion of teachers’ lessons interrupted by pupil misbehaviour over the previous week of term

Phase	All lessons	Most lessons	Some lessons	Rarely	Never	Haven’t taught any lessons	Total
Primary	22%	28%	33%	14%	1%	1%	100%
Secondary	10%	23%	44%	20%	3%	0%	100%
Special	12%	21%	43%	19%	2%	3%	100%

Base: All primary teachers (n = 497), secondary teachers (n = 489) and special school teachers (n = 315). Data table reference = “behaviour_interrupt”.

A large majority of primary school teachers (83%), secondary school teachers (77%) and special school teachers (76%) 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 that said lessons had been interrupted was broadly stable between March 2026 and December 2025. The proportion of secondary school teachers that said lessons had been stopped or interrupted was higher in March 2026 (77%) than in December 2025 (72%).

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

Figure 48: Proportion of leaders’ lessons interrupted by pupil misbehaviour over the previous week of term

Phase	All lessons	Most lessons	Some lessons	Rarely	Never	Haven’t taught any lessons	Total
Primary	3%	13%	29%	28%	5%	21%	100%
Secondary	3%	8%	33%	36%	15%	6%	100%
Special	3%	10%	29%	24%	5%	30%	100%

Base: All primary leaders (n = 481), secondary leaders (n = 571) and special school leaders (n = 138). Data table reference = “behaviour_interrupt”.

A minority of primary school leaders (45%), secondary school leaders (43%) and special school leaders (41%) said that pupil misbehaviour had stopped or interrupted at least some lessons they had taught in the past week.

The proportion of secondary school leaders that said pupil misbehaviour had stopped or interrupted lessons was higher in March 2026 (43%) than in December 2025 (39%).

Glossary of terms

Special educational needs and disabilities (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 EHC plan.