School and college voice: May 2026
Updated 24 September 2026
Applies to England
© Crown copyright 2026
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-and-college-voice-omnibus-surveys-for-2025-to-2026/school-and-college-voice-may-2026
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 May 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 May 2026 survey between 13 May and 9 June 2026. The respondents were:
| Audience | Responses |
|---|---|
| Primary school leaders | 596 |
| Secondary school leaders | 670 |
| Special school leaders | 213 |
| Primary school teachers | 550 |
| Secondary school teachers | 599 |
| Special school teachers | 825 |
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:
- phonics and early reading
- delivery of the Nuffield Early Language Intervention (NELI) programme
- impact of the condition of school buildings
- post-16 awareness
- extra-curricular activities
- enrichment partnerships in schools and colleges
- recruitment and retention of support staff
- equalities action plan
- how schools work with the speech and language therapy workforce
- regional improvement for standards and excellence (RISE)
- implementation of attendance guidance
- free school meals
- alternative provision outreach
- special school outreach to mainstream schools
- teacher knowledge and confidence regarding mental health
- mental health support teams
- violence against school staff
Phonics and early reading
Most primary schools use a systematic synthetic phonics (SSP) programme to support teaching of word reading. SSP programmes set out a structured sequence for teaching phonics and may include associated guidance, training, assessments and resources.
We asked primary teachers if they currently used an SSP programme as part of their day-to-day teaching. Overall, 66% of primary teachers reported doing so.
We asked primary teachers who used an SSP programme how, if at all, their SSP programme helped them identify children who needed more support. They were shown a list of potential options and asked to select all that applied.
Figure 1: Ways in which SSP programmes helped primary teachers to identify children who needed more support
| Response | Primary teachers |
|---|---|
| Assessment materials and resources | 88% |
| Guidance documents or materials | 73% |
| High-quality training | 60% |
| On hand to support school queries | 28% |
| We do not use it to identify children who need more support | 3% |
Base: All primary teachers who used an SSP programme as part of their day-to-day teaching (n = 362). Data table reference = “ssp_identify”.
We asked primary teachers how, if at all, their SSP supported them in meeting the needs of children who may require additional support, including those with specific needs such as dyslexia, autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This question was only asked of those who had specified how their SSP helped them to identify children who needed more support. They were shown a list of potential options and asked to select all that applied.
Figure 2: Ways in which SSP programmes supported primary teachers to meet the needs of children who may require additional support
| Response | Primary teachers |
|---|---|
| Resources or materials | 58% |
| Guidance on organising and delivering interventions | 52% |
| Assessment materials that support analysis of children’s learning needs | 46% |
| Guidance on strategies to support specific needs | 40% |
| Guidance on adaptations to phonics lessons | 36% |
| High quality training targeted towards children who need more support | 34% |
| On hand to support school queries | 19% |
| Other | 5% |
| Don’t know | 15% |
Base: All primary teachers who specified how their SSP helped them identify children who needed more support (n = 352). Data table reference = “ssp_support”.
We asked all primary teachers what would be most useful to help them to identify and support children who may require additional support to make progress in decoding, including those with specific needs such as dyslexia, autism or ADHD. They were shown a list of potential options and asked to select all that applied.
Figure 3: What teachers would find most useful to help identify and support children who may require additional support to make progress in decoding
| Response | Primary teachers |
|---|---|
| Resources to support children with specific needs | 60% |
| Ongoing in-school support for teaching those with specific needs | 58% |
| Training to effectively support children needing more support | 49% |
| Assessment materials to support analysis of learning needs | 48% |
| Guidance on adapting phonics for individual needs | 47% |
| Guidance or training to improve access to phonics for all children | 26% |
| Guidance on organising and delivering phonics interventions | 23% |
| Guidance on phonics teaching strategies | 21% |
| Other | 7% |
| I do not need further support | 8% |
Base: All primary teachers (n = 550). Data table reference = “ssp_useful”.
Delivery of the Nuffield Early Language Intervention
The NELI is a 20-week intervention programme for children aged 4 to 5, which provides schools with a way to identify early language difficulties and to build children’s vocabulary, listening and storytelling skills through targeted small group and individual sessions.
We asked primary teachers who taught reception classes whether the NELI programme had been delivered, or was in the process of being delivered, to any of the pupils they taught during the current academic year. We also asked primary school leaders whether the NELI programme had been delivered, or was in the process of being delivered, to any pupils in reception classes during the current academic year.
A small minority of primary teachers (17%) and primary leaders (20%) reported that the NELI programme had been delivered or was in the process of being delivered during the current academic year.
We then asked primary leaders in schools that delivered the NELI programme, what proportion of reception pupils in the current academic year had participated, or were currently participating, in the programme.
Figure 4: Proportion of reception pupils who participated in the NELI programme in schools delivering the programme
| Audience | Less than 10% | 11 to 25% | 26 to 50% | 51 to 75% | 76% or more | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaders | 15% | 35% | 23% | 3% | 11% | 12% | 100% |
Base: Primary leaders whose school delivered, or was currently delivering, the NELI programme to reception pupils in the current academic year (n = 123). Data table reference = “neli_participation”.
We asked teachers and leaders which barriers, if any, impacted their ability to deliver the NELI programme. This question was asked of those teachers and leaders whose reception classes had not received the NELI programme in the current academic year. They were shown a list of potential barriers and asked to select up to 3.
Figure 5: Barriers which impacted the ability to deliver the NELI programme, as reported by leaders and teachers
| Response | Leaders | Teachers |
|---|---|---|
| We use a different language programme | 51% | 42% |
| Limited staff capacity or training | 45% | 53% |
| We have not found NELI to be effective | 11% | 5% |
| Pupils are not ready to engage with the programme | 1% | 0% |
| Language interventions are focused on other year groups | 0% | 4% |
| Other | 19% | 11% |
| Don’t know | 6% | 15% |
Base: Primary leaders whose school had not delivered the NELI programme to reception pupils in the current academic year (n = 373) and primary teachers who taught reception classes and had no pupils who received the NELI programme in the current academic year (n = 67). The base for primary teachers is lower than 100 and the data should therefore be treated with caution. Data table reference = “neli_barriers”.
Impact of the condition of school buildings
We asked teachers how they would describe the physical condition of the classroom of the last classroom-based lesson they taught. They were asked only to consider structural aspects such as lighting, ventilation, temperature and damp. They were asked not to consider the quality of the furniture, equipment or aspects relating to human behaviour such as noise.
Figure 6: Teachers’ rating of the physical condition of the classroom of the last classroom-based lesson they taught
| Phase | Very good | Good | Neither good nor poor | Poor | Very poor | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | 17% | 45% | 19% | 16% | 4% | 100% |
| Secondary | 23% | 41% | 17% | 16% | 4% | 100% |
| Special | 23% | 45% | 16% | 12% | 3% | 100% |
Base: All primary teachers (n = 550), secondary teachers (n = 599) and special school teachers (n = 825). Data table reference = “schoolbuilding_condition”.
Overall, 62% of primary teachers, 63% of secondary teachers and 69% of special school teachers said that the condition of the classroom had been good or very good.
Conversely, 19% of primary teachers, 20% of secondary teachers and 15% of special teachers reported that the condition of the classroom had been poor or very poor.
We then asked teachers what impact, if any, the physical condition of the classroom had on their ability to teach. This question was only asked of those teachers who specified the physical condition of the last classroom they taught in.
Figure 7: Impact of the physical condition of the classroom on teachers’ ability to teach
| Phase | Very positive | Slightly positive | Neither positive nor negative | Slightly negative | Very negative | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | 16% | 19% | 39% | 21% | 3% | 2% | 100% |
| Secondary | 19% | 20% | 32% | 24% | 4% | 0% | 100% |
| Special | 25% | 20% | 31% | 19% | 4% | 1% | 100% |
Base: All primary teachers (n = 547), secondary teachers (n = 599) and special school teachers (n = 825) who specified the condition of their last classroom. Data table reference = “schoolbuilding_teaching”.
Overall, 35% of primary teachers, 39% of secondary teachers and 45% of special school teachers said that the physical condition of their last classroom had a slightly or very positive impact on their ability to teach.
Conversely, 24% of primary teachers, 28% of secondary teachers and 23% of special school teachers reported that their last classroom had a slightly or very negative impact on their ability to teach.
We asked all teachers what impact, if any, the design, layout and physical condition of the school corridors had on pupil behaviour.
Figure 8: Impact of the design, layout and physical condition of school corridors on pupil behaviour, as reported by teachers
| Phase | Very positive | Slightly positive | Neither positive nor negative | Slightly negative | Very negative | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | 12% | 24% | 29% | 27% | 6% | 2% | 100% |
| Secondary | 10% | 17% | 18% | 40% | 14% | 1% | 100% |
| Special | 19% | 22% | 24% | 25% | 8% | 1% | 100% |
Base: All primary teachers (n = 550), secondary teachers (n = 599) and special school teachers (n = 825). Data table reference = “schoolbuilding_corridors”.
Overall, 36% of primary teachers, 27% of secondary teachers and 41% of special school teachers said that the design, layout and physical condition of the school corridors had a slightly or very positive impact on pupil behaviour.
Conversely, 33% of primary teachers, 54% of secondary teachers and 33% of special school teachers reported that the school corridors had a slightly or very negative impact on pupil behaviour.
We asked teachers how, if at all, the overall physical condition of the school buildings affected their wellbeing at work. The physical condition of the buildings was defined as relating to the whole school, including the quality of the classrooms, corridors, toilets, temperature, lighting and ventilation.
Figure 9: Teachers’ rating of how the overall physical condition of the school buildings affected their wellbeing at work
| Phase | Very positively | Slightly positively | Neither positively nor negatively | Slightly negatively | Very negatively | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | 12% | 21% | 25% | 31% | 10% | 0% | 100% |
| Secondary | 13% | 20% | 22% | 36% | 10% | 0% | 100% |
| Special | 20% | 21% | 18% | 32% | 9% | 1% | 100% |
Base: All primary teachers (n = 550), secondary teachers (n = 599) and special school teachers (n = 825). Data table reference = “schoolbuilding_workwellbeing”.
Overall, 33% of primary teachers, 32% of secondary teachers and 41% of special school teachers said that the overall condition of the school buildings had a slightly or very positive impact on their wellbeing at work.
Conversely, 42% of primary teachers, 46% of secondary teachers and 40% of special school teachers reported that the condition of the school buildings had either a slightly or very negative impact on their wellbeing at work.
We then asked all teachers how, if at all, the overall physical condition of the school buildings affected their job satisfaction.
Figure 10: Teachers’ rating of how the overall physical condition of the school buildings affected their job satisfaction
| Phase | Very positively | Slightly positively | Neither positively nor negatively | Slightly negatively | Very negatively | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | 10% | 20% | 37% | 25% | 7% | 1% | 100% |
| Secondary | 11% | 22% | 30% | 30% | 7% | 0% | 100% |
| Special | 18% | 23% | 28% | 25% | 6% | 0% | 100% |
Base: All primary teachers (n = 550), secondary teachers (n = 599) and special school teachers (n = 825). Data table reference = “schoolbuilding_jobsat”.
Overall, 30% of primary teachers, 33% of secondary teachers and 41% of special school teachers said that the overall condition of the school buildings had a slightly or very positive impact on their job satisfaction.
Conversely, 33% of primary teachers, 37% of secondary teachers and 32% of special school teachers reported that the condition of the buildings had either a slightly negative or very negative impact on their job satisfaction.
Post-16 awareness
We asked secondary teachers who taught years 9, 10 or 11 whether they had heard of T levels. Overall, 89% said they had heard of the T level qualification.
We then asked secondary teachers who had heard of T levels how much they knew about them.
Figure 11: How much teachers knew about T levels
| Audience | A lot | A little | I have only heard of them | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Secondary teachers | 6% | 68% | 26% | 100% |
Base: All secondary teachers who taught years 9, 10 or 11 and had heard of T levels (n = 504). Data table reference = “tlevels_knowledge”.
Overall, 74% of year 9 to 11 teachers who were aware of T levels said that they knew a little or a lot about them.
We asked secondary teachers who knew at least a little about T levels what proportion of their pupils they would encourage to consider T levels.
Figure 12: Proportion of pupils that secondary teachers would encourage to consider T levels
| Audience | Most or all | Some | Very few | None | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Secondary teachers | 4% | 51% | 23% | 10% | 12% | 100% |
Base: All secondary teachers who taught years 9, 10 or 11 and knew at least a little about T levels (n = 373). Data table reference = “tlevels_encourage”.
Overall, 78% of teachers who knew at least a little about T levels said they would encourage any of their pupils to consider the qualification.
We asked secondary teachers who would encourage any of their pupils to consider T levels how confident they would feel explaining to students what a T level qualification is.
Figure 13: Teacher confidence in explaining T level qualifications to students
| Audience | Very confident | Fairly confident | Not very confident | Not at all confident | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Secondary teachers | 4% | 42% | 44% | 10% | 0% | 100% |
Base: All secondary teachers who taught years 9,10 or 11 and would encourage any of their pupils to consider T levels (n = 291). Data table reference = “tlevels_confident”.
Overall, 46% were very confident or fairly confident that they could explain to students what a T level qualification is.
Extra-curricular activities
We asked leaders which extra-curricular activities their schools had been able to offer for pupils in the current academic year. They were shown a list of extra-curricular activities and asked to select all that applied. Extra-curricular activities were defined as being activities outside of curriculum teaching time and which were regular activities rather than a one-off event.
Figure 14: Extra-curricular activities offered to pupils this academic year
| Response | Primary leaders | Secondary leaders | Special leaders |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competitive team sports | 88% | 98% | 40% |
| Positions of responsibility (for example, school council, mentor) | 76% | 92% | 55% |
| Orchestra, band, choir or other musical performance group | 72% | 88% | 32% |
| Individual instrument or singing lessons | 65% | 92% | 25% |
| Arts, crafts, and design | 69% | 80% | 46% |
| Clubs relating to an academic subject (apart from homework or revision sessions) | 61% | 88% | 13% |
| Drama and theatre | 56% | 92% | 30% |
| Interest clubs (for example, book, gardening, cookery clubs) | 65% | 75% | 39% |
| Games clubs (for example, chess, darts) | 55% | 88% | 39% |
| Dance | 60% | 55% | 28% |
| Competitive individual sports | 36% | 48% | 13% |
| Personal and social development (for example, Duke of Edinburgh award) | 6% | 84% | 45% |
| Community, diversity and charity groups | 11% | 70% | 17% |
| Professional development | 7% | 67% | 30% |
| Debating or public speaking | 10% | 63% | 2% |
| Creative writing | 14% | 52% | 12% |
| Music or video production | 10% | 35% | 15% |
| Uniform groups (for example, combined cadet force, scouts) | 2% | 16% | 3% |
| Other physical activity | 40% | 55% | 36% |
| We have not been able to offer any of these activities this year | 0% | 0% | 17% |
Base: All primary leaders (n = 596), secondary leaders (n = 670) and special school leaders (n = 213). Data table reference = “extracurricular_activities”.
Enrichment partnerships in schools and colleges
We asked leaders whether their school had worked in partnership with external organisations on enrichment activities during the current academic year. Working in partnership was defined as meaning the school collaborated with local or national partners, either in-person or online, to help deliver their enrichment offer. Partnerships may be paid or unpaid.
Overall, 81% of primary leaders, 81% of secondary leaders and 78% of special school leaders said that their school had worked on enrichment activities in partnership with external organisations.
We asked leaders whose school had worked on enrichment activities with external partners, in what ways had their school worked with those external partners.
Figure 15: Ways in which schools worked on enrichment activities in partnership with external partners
| Response | Primary leaders | Secondary leaders | Special leaders |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delivered specific enrichment activities | 85% | 82% | 80% |
| Facilitated off-site trips and visits within the UK | 51% | 74% | 63% |
| Provided resources for our staff to deliver enrichment | 32% | 46% | 39% |
| Upskilled our staff to deliver enrichment | 37% | 30% | 44% |
| Facilitated international trips | 3% | 44% | 6% |
| Other | 3% | 5% | 7% |
| Don’t know | 0% | 1% | 1% |
Base: Primary leaders (n = 478), secondary leaders (n = 542) and special school leaders (n = 166) whose school worked on enrichment activities in partnership with external partners. Data table reference = “eca_partnership_yes”.
We asked leaders whose school had not worked in partnership with external partners on enrichment activities during the current academic year, what were the main reasons for this.
Figure 16: Reasons why schools did not work in partnership with external partners on enrichment activities
| Response | Leaders |
|---|---|
| We cannot afford to partner with external organisations on enrichment | 60% |
| To prevent families or students having additional costs | 37% |
| We lack information on suitable organisations to work with | 31% |
| We are happy with our current enrichment offer | 24% |
| Lack of high-quality organisations to partner with | 20% |
| Administrative burden is too high | 11% |
| They don’t provide value for money | 11% |
| Other | 4% |
| Don’t know | 5% |
Base: Leaders whose school had not worked on enrichment activities in partnership with external organisations (n = 205). Data table reference = “eca_partnership_no”.
Recruitment and retention of support staff
We asked leaders which non-teaching roles they had recruited for in the last academic year. They were asked to only consider roles that were directly recruited and employed by the school, excluding any roles that were outsourced. They were shown a list of roles and asked to select all that applied. Examples of School Business Professions included bursars, business managers and finance officers.
Figure 17: Non-teaching roles that schools had recruited for in the last academic year
| Response | Primary leaders | Secondary leaders | Special leaders |
|---|---|---|---|
| Teaching assistants or other learning support staff | 81% | 87% | 100% |
| Midday supervisors or assistants | 50% | 29% | 42% |
| Catering, cleaning and site management | 31% | 57% | 48% |
| Administrative and finance staff | 26% | 60% | 57% |
| Health, pastoral and welfare roles | 15% | 57% | 47% |
| Technicians | 4% | 46% | 9% |
| School Business Professions | 12% | 25% | 18% |
| Other support roles | 4% | 20% | 17% |
| We have not recruited for any support roles | 10% | 3% | 0% |
| Don’t know | 0% | 2% | 0% |
Base: All primary leaders (n = 596), secondary leaders (n = 670) and special school leaders (n = 213). Data table reference = “sssnb_recruited”.
We asked leaders which, if any, of the non-teaching roles they had recruited for in the last academic year they had found hard to fill. ‘Hard to fill’ was defined as meaning they experienced recruitment difficulties, such as a lack of applicants applying for the role or only unsuitable applicants applying. Data for each specific role are based only on those schools that had recruited for the given role in the last academic year.
Figure 18: Non-teaching roles that leaders had recruited for in the last academic year and found hard to fill
| Response | Leaders |
|---|---|
| Teaching assistants or other learning support staff | 57% |
| Midday supervisors or assistants | 48% |
| Catering, cleaning and site management | 33% |
| Technicians | 30% |
| Health, pastoral and welfare roles | 28% |
| School Business Professions (for example, bursars, business managers, finance officers) | 23% |
| Other support roles | 21% |
| Administrative and finance staff | 19% |
Base: All leaders whose schools had recruited for teaching assistants (n = 1272), health, pastoral and welfare roles (n = 583), midday supervisors (n = 586), catering, cleaning and site management (n = 657), administrative and finance staff (n = 696), School Business Professions (n = 270), technicians (n = 355) or other support roles (n = 191) in the last academic year. Data table reference = “sssnb_hardtofill_rebased”.
We asked all leaders which types of support staff, if any, they felt that they did not have enough of to meet the needs of the school. The were shown a list of roles and asked to select up to 3.
Figure 19: Non-teaching roles that schools did not have enough of to meet their needs
| Response | Primary leaders | Secondary leaders | Special leaders |
|---|---|---|---|
| Teaching assistants or other learning support staff | 81% | 73% | 67% |
| Health, pastoral and welfare roles | 52% | 48% | 39% |
| Midday supervisors or assistants | 38% | 22% | 25% |
| Administrative and finance staff | 8% | 14% | 8% |
| Catering, cleaning and site management | 8% | 12% | 9% |
| Technicians | 3% | 14% | 4% |
| School Business Professions (for example, bursars, business managers, finance officers) | 3% | 3% | 4% |
| We have sufficient support staff to meet the needs of the school | 9% | 9% | 16% |
Base: All primary leaders (n = 596), secondary leaders (n = 670) and special school leaders (n = 213). Data table reference = “sssnb_needs”.
Equalities action plan
From April 2027, employers (including schools and trusts) with 250 or more employees will be required to publish an action plan, alongside their gender pay gap data, outlining how they will reduce their gender pay gap and support employees experiencing menopause.
We asked leaders who said that they worked at a school or trust with 250 or more employees whether they were aware of this requirement. Overall, 31% of leaders were aware of it.
We also asked leaders what, if anything, would help them to prepare for the new requirement to publish an action plan. Again, this question was only asked of those leaders who said that they worked at a school or trust with 250 or more employees. They were shown a list of options and asked to select all that applied.
Figure 20: What, if anything, would help leaders prepare for the new requirement for an action plan
| Response | Leaders |
|---|---|
| Education specific guidance for schools and trusts with 250 or more employees | 64% |
| Case studies or examples of best practice from other schools | 59% |
| Access to training or workshops | 49% |
| Guidance for all employers with 250 or more employees (not education specific) | 24% |
| Other | 1% |
| We do not need any additional support | 8% |
| Don’t know | 13% |
Base: Leaders who said that they worked at a school or trust with 250 or more employees (n = 631). Data table reference = “equalities_prepare”.
How schools work with the speech and language therapy workforce
We asked primary and secondary leaders what, if any, types of support they used speech and language therapists for. They were shown a list of support types and asked to select all that applied.
Figure 21: Types of support that speech and language therapists were used for
| Response | Primary leaders | Secondary leaders |
|---|---|---|
| One-to-one support for individual pupils in a mainstream classroom | 57% | 26% |
| One-to-one support for individual pupils outside the mainstream classroom | 40% | 44% |
| Advice at a whole school level (to inform and develop policies and plans) | 45% | 25% |
| Delivery of specific group-level interventions (for example, class level screening) | 38% | 31% |
| School staff training | 41% | 23% |
| Other | 5% | 1% |
| We do not use speech and language therapists | 6% | 17% |
| Don’t know | 1% | 15% |
Base: Primary leaders (n = 596) and secondary leaders (n = 670). Data table reference = “saltworkforce_support”.
Where primary and secondary schools used speech and language therapy support workers, we asked leaders what types of work were delivered by them. A speech and language support worker is a support level worker who delivers the interventions under the supervision of a registered therapist. This role includes assistants, trainees, apprentices, or specialised teaching assistants trained in communication needs.
Figure 22: Types of work delivered by speech and language therapy support workers
| Response | Primary leaders | Secondary leaders |
|---|---|---|
| One-to-one support for individual pupils in a mainstream classroom | 40% | 26% |
| One-to-one support for individual pupils outside the mainstream classroom | 27% | 45% |
| Delivery of specific group-level interventions (for example, class level screening) | 23% | 26% |
| Advice at a whole school level (to inform and develop policies and plans) | 21% | 17% |
| School staff training | 18% | 18% |
| Other | 2% | 1% |
| We do not use speech and language therapists | 32% | 20% |
| Don’t know | 7% | 15% |
Base: Primary leaders (n = 554) and secondary leaders (n = 447) who used speech and language therapists in their school. Data table reference = “saltworkforce_workers”.
We asked primary and secondary leaders what, if anything, had prevented them from working with speech and language therapy support workers. This question was only asked of those who did not use speech and language support workers.
Figure 23: Barriers to using speech and language therapy support workers
| Response | Leaders |
|---|---|
| Lack of funding available in the school | 51% |
| Unaware using a support worker was an option | 38% |
| Speech and language support workers are not available locally | 33% |
| Waiting lists are too long for speech and language support | 24% |
| Support workers are not needed to deliver the support | 5% |
| We have concerns about their level of skills or competence | 0% |
| Other | 2% |
| Don’t know | 6% |
Base: Primary and secondary leaders who did not use speech and language therapy support workers in their school (n = 280). Data table reference = “saltworkforce_barriers”.
Regional improvement for standards and excellence (RISE)
In spring 2025, the government introduced the RISE programme to support schools with national priorities to improve standards in attainment, attendance, inclusion and reception quality.
We asked leaders which aspects of RISE, if any, they or their school had engaged with since April 2025.
Figure 24: Aspects of RISE, if any, that leaders and schools had engaged with
| Response | Primary leaders | Secondary leaders | Special leaders |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hubs (for example, Maths, English, teaching school and attendance and behaviour) | 38% | 35% | 17% |
| Regional RISE conferences (for example, on attainment, attendance, reception and mainstream inclusion) | 26% | 37% | 10% |
| Regional RISE networking events (for example, the key stage 2 networks) | 11% | 11% | 3% |
| Targeted RISE intervention (determined by a school’s Ofsted judgements) | 5% | 11% | 6% |
| Other | 4% | 2% | 4% |
| I have heard of RISE but we have not engaged with it | 22% | 19% | 37% |
| I’ve not heard of RISE | 10% | 8% | 13% |
| Don’t know | 11% | 17% | 16% |
Base: All primary leaders (n = 596), secondary leaders (n = 670) and special school leaders (n = 213). Data table reference = “rise_engage”.
Implementation of attendance guidance
We asked leaders whether their school analysed attendance data by 5% absence bandings. In this case ‘analysis’ was defined as going beyond headline attendance percentages, looking at individual pupils, cohorts and groups across the school, including pupils who may be persistently or severely absent.
Figure 25: Whether schools analysed attendance data by 5% absence bandings
| Phase | At least weekly | At least fortnightly | At least half termly | Less than half termly | No | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | 50% | 19% | 25% | 1% | 1% | 4% | 100% |
| Secondary | 68% | 14% | 10% | 1% | 1% | 5% | 100% |
| Special | 54% | 14% | 21% | 2% | 4% | 6% | 100% |
Base: All primary leaders (n = 596), secondary leaders (n = 670) and special school leaders (n = 213). Data table reference = “attendance_analyse”.
Overall, 68% of primary leaders, 82% of secondary leaders and 67% of special school leaders said that their school analysed attendance data using 5% absence bandings on either a weekly or fortnightly basis.
We also asked leaders whether their school held meetings with the local authority (referred to as targeting support meetings in the attendance guidance: Working together to improve school attendance) to identify pupils and cohorts at risk of poor attendance and agree targeted actions and access to services for those pupils.
Figure 26: How often, if at all, schools held meetings with local authorities to identify pupils and cohorts at risk of poor attendance
| Phase | At least termly | Less often than termly | Never | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | 57% | 18% | 14% | 12% | 100% |
| Secondary | 60% | 12% | 5% | 23% | 100% |
| Special | 60% | 13% | 13% | 13% | 100% |
Base: All primary leaders (n = 596), secondary leaders (n = 670) and special school leaders (n = 213). Data table reference = “attendance_target”.
Overall, 75% of primary leaders, 72% of secondary leaders and 74% of special school leaders said that their school held meetings with the local authority to identify groups at risk of poor attendance and agree targeted actions.
In June 2025, when the question was previously asked, a lower proportion of primary leaders (70%) said that their school had attendance meetings with the local authority. The equivalent data for secondary leaders and special school leaders remained broadly stable between June 2025 and May 2026.
We also asked leaders whether their school had access to a single point of contact in their local authority for all attendance related issues. Overall, 79% of primary leaders, 64% of secondary leaders and 77% of special school leaders said that their school had access to a single point of contact. This was broadly in line with June 2025 when the question was previously asked.
Free school meals
We asked leaders what options were available to pupils at lunchtime and were within the cost limit for free school meals. They were shown a list of options and asked to select all that applied.
Figure 27: Food and drink options available to pupils within the cost limit for free school meals
| Response | Primary leaders | Secondary leaders | Special leaders |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hot or main meal | 91% | 93% | 90% |
| Dessert or puddings | 85% | 83% | 84% |
| Sandwiches | 66% | 93% | 72% |
| Drinks | 56% | 85% | 65% |
| Snacks (for example fruit, yoghurt, crisps) | 51% | 83% | 66% |
| Meal deal (main meal and dessert) | 37% | 87% | 34% |
| Don’t know | 2% | 1% | 3% |
Base: All primary leaders (n = 596), secondary leaders (n = 670) and special school leaders (n = 213). Data table reference = “fsm_options”.
Overall, 15% of primary leaders, 67% of secondary leaders and 18% of special school leaders said that their school offered all of the food and drink options within the cost limit.
Alternative provision outreach
We asked primary and secondary leaders whether any pupils in their school currently received outreach support from alternative provision (AP) settings.
Figure 28: Whether pupils currently received outreach support from AP settings
| Phase | All pupils who need it receive outreach support | Some pupils who need it receive outreach support | Pupils need outreach support but it is not received | Outreach support is not required | My school gets this type of support from elsewhere | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | 6% | 27% | 18% | 37% | 6% | 5% | 100% |
| Secondary | 11% | 61% | 11% | 6% | 3% | 8% | 100% |
Base: Primary leaders (n = 596) and secondary leaders (n = 670). Data table reference = “ap_support”.
We asked primary and secondary leaders whose school currently received outreach support from AP settings, who was delivering that outreach support.
Figure 29: Who was delivering AP outreach support to schools
| Response | Primary leaders | Secondary leaders |
|---|---|---|
| A state funded alternative school, for example a pupil referral unit, an AP academy or free school | 50% | 78% |
| A non-school based alternative provider | 45% | 48% |
| A special school | 16% | 16% |
| An independent school providing alternative provision | 8% | 11% |
| Other | 6% | 7% |
| Don’t know | 2% | 7% |
Base: Primary leaders (n = 208) and secondary leaders (n = 489) whose school received outreach support from AP settings. Data table reference = “ap_deliver”.
We also asked leaders whose schools currently received outreach support from AP settings, what types of AP support were currently being delivered in their school.
Figure 30: Types of outreach support that were currently being delivered in schools from AP settings
| Response | Primary leaders | Secondary leaders |
|---|---|---|
| One-to-one behavioural support for pupils | 62% | 53% |
| Transition support for pupils who have returned from AP | 14% | 25% |
| Staff training on specialised behavioural support | 28% | 11% |
| “On call” advice for school staff | 19% | 8% |
| Self-regulation classes for small groups of pupils | 5% | 18% |
| Support on curriculum pathways | 4% | 10% |
| Behaviour coaching for school leaders and staff | 8% | 5% |
| Support for your whole-school behaviour culture | 6% | 6% |
| Other | 15% | 11% |
| Don’t know | 8% | 25% |
Base: Primary leaders (n = 208) and secondary leaders (n = 489) whose school received outreach support from AP settings. Data table reference = “ap_type”.
We asked primary and secondary leaders in schools where some pupils were not currently receiving the outreach support they needed from AP settings, what were the reasons for that.
Figure 31: Reasons why pupils who required AP outreach support services did not currently receive them
| Response | Primary leaders | Secondary leaders |
|---|---|---|
| The local AP offer does not provide enough outreach support | 50% | 58% |
| It is too expensive | 36% | 51% |
| The local AP outreach offer does not meet the needs of our pupils | 25% | 24% |
| I wasn’t aware that outreach support services were available | 4% | 5% |
| Other reason | 14% | 5% |
| Don’t know | 7% | 13% |
Base: Primary leaders (n = 277) and secondary leaders (n = 484) in schools where some pupils were not currently receiving the outreach support they needed from AP settings. Data table reference = “ap_reasons”.
Reasons for pupils not receiving the outreach support they needed from AP settings were broadly similar to February 2025, when the question was previously asked.
Special school outreach to mainstream schools
We asked special school leaders whether their school provided outreach support to mainstream educational settings. Outreach support was defined as being where a school provides support to another school. Examples of outreach include support for pupils with special educational needs (SEN), staff training, and advice on school policies on special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).
Overall, 23% of special school leaders said their school provided support to nurseries, 56% provided support to primary schools and 40% provided support to secondary schools. A minority (36%) said that they did not provide outreach support.
We then asked special school leaders whose school provided outreach support, what types of support their school provided.
Figure 32: Types of outreach support offered by special schools to mainstream educational settings
| Response | Special school leaders |
|---|---|
| Staff training on specialist SEN support | 92% |
| Support on curriculum pathways for pupils with SEN | 53% |
| “On call” advice for school staff | 48% |
| One-to-one SEN support for pupils | 44% |
| Support for whole-school inclusion plans | 40% |
| Transition support for pupils who have moved from special school to mainstream | 34% |
| Self-regulation classes for small groups of pupils | 16% |
| Other | 20% |
Base: Special school leaders whose school offered outreach support to mainstream educational settings (n = 131). Data table reference = “outreach_type”.
We asked special school leaders whose school did not provide outreach support, what were the reasons for that.
Figure 33: Reasons why special schools did not provide outreach support to mainstream educational settings
| Response | Special school leaders |
|---|---|
| We do not have capacity to support mainstream schools | 59% |
| There is no funding to enable outreach | 58% |
| We do not know what outreach activities schools need most | 22% |
| We are unsure of how to apply for funding available | 22% |
| No local schools currently need outreach support | 10% |
| We do not want to provide outreach support | 3% |
| Other | 19% |
| Don’t know | 6% |
Base: Special school leaders whose school did not offer outreach support to mainstream educational settings (n = 76). The base is lower than 100 and the data should therefore be treated with caution. Data table reference = “outreach_barriers”.
Teacher knowledge and confidence regarding mental health
We asked teachers a series of questions about pupils’ mental health.
First, we asked teachers to what extent they agreed or disagreed that they felt equipped to identify behaviour that may be linked to a mental health issue.
Figure 34: Extent to which teachers agreed or disagreed that they felt equipped to identify behaviour that may be linked to a mental health issue
| Audience | Strongly agree | Tend to agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Tend to disagree | Strongly disagree | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teachers | 17% | 61% | 11% | 10% | 1% | 100% |
Base: All teachers (n = 1974). Data table reference = “mh_knowledge_identify”.
A large majority of teachers (78%) strongly agreed or tended to agree that they felt equipped to identify behaviour that may be linked to a mental health issue.
We also asked teachers to what extent they agreed or disagreed that they knew how to help pupils with mental health issues to access support offered by their school.
Figure 35: Extent to which teachers agreed or disagreed that they knew how to help pupils with mental health issues access support offered by their school
| Audience | Strongly agree | Tend to agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Tend to disagree | Strongly disagree | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teachers | 26% | 52% | 11% | 10% | 1% | 100% |
Base: All teachers (n = 1974). Data table reference = “mh_knowledge_support”.
A large majority of teachers (78%) either strongly agreed or tended to agree that they knew how to help pupils access mental health support offered by the school. The proportion of teachers who agreed that they knew how to help pupils access school mental health support remained stable between June 2025 and May 2026.
We also asked teachers to what extent they agreed or disagreed that they knew how to help pupils with mental health issues to access specialist support outside of school.
Figure 36: Extent to which teachers agreed or disagreed that they knew how to help pupils with mental health issues access specialist support outside of school
| Audience | Strongly agree | Tend to agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Tend to disagree | Strongly disagree | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teachers | 9% | 37% | 18% | 27% | 8% | 100% |
Base: All teachers (n = 1974). Data table reference = “mh_knowledge_outside”.
A minority of teachers (46%) strongly agreed or tended to agree that they knew how to help pupils access specialist mental health support outside of school. The proportion of teachers who agreed that they knew how to access specialist mental health support outside of school remained stable between June 2025 and May 2026.
We also asked teachers to what extent they agreed or disagreed that they felt equipped to teach pupils in their class who had mental health needs.
Figure 37: Extent to which teachers agreed or disagreed that they felt equipped to teach pupils in their class who had mental health needs
| Audience | Strongly agree | Tend to agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Tend to disagree | Strongly disagree | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teachers | 15% | 48% | 18% | 16% | 2% | 100% |
Base: All teachers (n = 1974). Data table reference = “mh_knowledge_equipped”.
Overall, 63% of teachers strongly agreed or tended to agree that they felt equipped to teach pupils in their class with mental health needs. The proportion of teachers who agreed that they felt equipped to teach pupils in their class with mental health needs remained stable between June 2025 and May 2026.
We also asked teachers to what extent they agreed or disagreed that they had access to mental health professionals if they needed specialist advice about pupils’ mental health.
Figure 38: Extent to which teachers agreed or disagreed that they had access to mental health professionals if they needed specialist advice about pupils’ mental health
| Audience | Strongly agree | Tend to agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Tend to disagree | Strongly disagree | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teachers | 14% | 33% | 16% | 26% | 11% | 100% |
Base: All teachers (n = 1974). Data table reference = “mh_knowledge_professionals”.
A minority of teachers (47%) strongly agreed or tended to agree that they had access to mental health professionals if they needed specialist advice about pupils’ mental health. The proportion of teachers who agreed that they had access to mental health professionals remained stable between June 2025 and May 2026.
We also asked teachers to what extent they agreed or disagreed that pupils were able to access specialist support when needed.
Figure 39: Extent to which teachers agreed or disagreed that pupils were able to access specialist support when needed
| Audience | Strongly agree | Tend to agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Tend to disagree | Strongly disagree | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teachers | 13% | 34% | 17% | 25% | 12% | 100% |
Base: All teachers (n = 1974). Data table reference = “mh_knowledge_access”.
A minority of teachers (46%) strongly agreed or tended to agree that pupils were able to access specialist support when needed. The proportion of teachers who agreed or disagreed that pupils were able to access specialist support when needed remained stable between June 2025 and May 2026.
Mental health support teams
In 2018, NHS England and DfE introduced mental health support teams (MHSTs) working with schools and colleges to offer early intervention mental health and wellbeing services to pupils and students. Where MHSTs are in operation, they may have a different name locally. MHST coverage has grown each year since the inception of the programme. For more detail, refer to Mental health support teams: coverage and school and college experience.
We asked leaders whether they were aware of the MHST programme. A large majority of leaders (71%) were aware of the programme. The proportion of leaders who were aware of the MHST programme remained broadly stable between March 2024 and May 2026.
We then asked leaders who were aware of the MHST programme, whether their school was working with an MHST.
Among those aware of MHSTs, 65% of leaders said their school was currently working with one and 7% said they were not currently working with one but that this was in development. The proportion of leaders whose school was currently working with an MHST was lower in March 2024 (56%) when the question was last asked.
When the 2026 data are rebased on all leaders, including those not previously aware of MHSTs, 46% of leaders said their school was currently working with an MHST and 5% said they were not currently working with one but that this was in development.
We then asked leaders to rate how likely or unlikely they would be to work with an MHST in future if it was offered to their school. This question was only asked of those leaders who were aware of MHSTs but were not currently working with one or already in the process of developing a working relationship.
Figure 40: Likelihood of schools starting to work with an MHST in the future
| Audience | Very likely | Fairly likely | Fairly unlikely | Very unlikely | Don’t know | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaders | 60% | 28% | 3% | 2% | 8% | 100% |
Base: Leaders who were aware of the MHST programme but were not currently working with one or already in the process of developing a working relationship (n = 289). Data table reference = “mhst_likely”.
Overall, of leaders aware of the MHST programme but not currently working with one or already in the process of developing a working relationship, a large majority (88%) said they were very likely or fairly likely to work with an MHST if this was offered to their school. The proportion of leaders who reported being very likely or fairly likely to work with an MHST was higher than in March 2024 (73%).
A small minority of leaders (5%) said they were very unlikely or fairly unlikely to work with an MHST.
Violence against school staff
We asked leaders what methods their school used to record incidents of work-related violence against staff. Work-related violence was defined as any incident in which a person is abused, threatened or assaulted in circumstances relating to their work, which can be from parents or carers, students, or colleagues. This also includes verbal abuse or threats, including face to face, online and via telephone and physical attacks.
Figure 41: Methods used by schools to record incidents of work-related violence against staff, as reported by leaders
| Response | Primary leaders | Secondary leaders | Special leaders |
|---|---|---|---|
| Safeguarding system (for example, CPOMS, MyConcern) | 88% | 86% | 89% |
| Reporting via email to leaders | 25% | 53% | 26% |
| Management information system (for example, SIMS, Arbor) | 15% | 33% | 36% |
| Paper-based incident log or book | 19% | 16% | 19% |
| Filing a formal police report | 10% | 25% | 17% |
| Another digitised system (for example, spreadsheet, Microsoft or Google form) | 8% | 18% | 21% |
| Other | 3% | 2% | 8% |
| We do not record these incidents | 1% | 1% | 1% |
Base: All primary leaders (n = 596), secondary leaders (n = 670) and special school leaders (n = 213). Data table reference = “staffviolence_record”.
We also asked teachers what methods their school used to record incidents of work-related violence against staff.
Figure 42: Methods used by schools to record incidents of work-related violence against staff, as reported by teachers
| Response | Primary teachers | Secondary teachers | Special teachers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Safeguarding system (for example, CPOMS, MyConcern) | 92% | 81% | 93% |
| Reporting via email to leaders | 21% | 55% | 25% |
| Management information system (for example, SIMS, Arbor) | 22% | 38% | 38% |
| Paper-based incident log or book | 18% | 13% | 25% |
| Filing a formal police report | 8% | 13% | 9% |
| Another digitised system (for example, spreadsheet, Microsoft or Google form) | 5% | 9% | 9% |
| Other | 1% | 2% | 6% |
| We do not record these incidents | 2% | 4% | 1% |
Base: All primary teachers (n = 550), secondary teachers (n = 599) and special school teachers (n = 825). Data table reference = “staffviolence_record”.
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).