Written evidence submitted by NAHT

About NAHT

1.      NAHT welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence on teacher recruitment, training and retention school leader recruitment and retention to the House of Commons Education Select Committee.

2.      NAHT is the UK’s largest professional trade union for school leaders.  We represent more than 35,000 head teachers, executive heads, CEOs, deputy and assistant heads, vice principals and school business leaders.  Our members work across: the early years, primary, special and secondary schools; independent schools; sixth form and FE colleges; outdoor education centres; pupil referral units, social services establishments and other educational settings.

3.      In addition to the representation, advice and training that we provide for existing school leaders, we also support, develop and represent the school leaders of the future, through NAHT Edge, the middle leadership section of our association.  We use our voice at the highest levels of government to influence policy for the benefit of leaders and learners everywhere.

About this submission

4.      The Committee’s call for evidence covers a great deal of ground.  In the space available we have focused our submission on four of the Committee’s key questions:

• the current situation regarding the recruitment and retention of school leaders
• the actions that we believe the Department for Education should take to address the recruitment and retention challenges
• our assessment of the impact of the early career framework
• the challenges in recruiting and retaining teachers and school leaders from different demographic backgrounds.

The current situation regarding teacher recruitment and retention: what are the main factors leading to difficulties recruiting and retaining teachers?

Leadership recruitment and retention

5.      For this submission, NAHT’s evidence is focused on leadership supply.

6.      Undoubtedly the call for evidence will yield plentiful evidence on the difficulties of recruiting and retaining teachers, but we believe it is critical to alert the Committee to the collapse in leadership aspiration and the shocking wastage rates among middle leaders; assistant and deputy heads, and head teachers, that are as serious as early career attrition rates for teachers.

Five-year attrition rates for school leaders

7.      In all school leadership categories wastage rates have increased when comparing the period 2011-2016, to the period 2015 – 2020, as the table below demonstrates.

Wastage rates of new school leaders aged under 50 within five years of appointment

Source: NAHT analysis of data received from DfE following an FOI request

and submitted in written evidence to the STRB[6]

8.      The above table shows that:

• more than one in four primary assistant and deputy head teachers leave their role within five years

• a quarter of all primary head teachers leave their role within five years

• more than one in three assistant, deputy and head teachers in secondary schools leave their role within five years.

• approaching half of middle leaders across the primary and secondary phases leave their role within five years.

9.      NAHT conducted further detailed analysis to understand what happens to these school leaders who leave their posts.

10.  Using additional official data released in the DfE’s addendum to School leadership in England,[7] our analysis[8] found that a majority of assistant and deputy heads, and head teachers, who left their post within five years of appointment are no longer employed in state-funded schools that serve 93% of England’s pupils.  Moreover, approaching half of middle leaders who left their post are also recorded as having left the profession.

11.  Overall, about a third (31%) of primary and secondary senior leaders left their post within five years,[9] more than half (53%) of whom quit teaching in state funded schools that serve 93% of England’s pupils.[10]

12.  In the primary phase more than a quarter (27%) of senior leaders left their post within five years, of whom more than half (52%) quit teaching in state-funded schools.[11]

• A quarter (25%) of primary head teachers left their post within five years, almost two-thirds (64%) of whom left teaching in state-funded schools.
• More than a quarter (26%) of primary deputy head teachers left their post within five years, approaching half (46%) of whom left teaching in state-funded schools.

• Approaching a third (29%) of primary assistant head teachers left their post within five years, over half (52%) of whom left teaching in state-funded schools.

13.  In the secondary phase, more than a third (38%) of senior leaders left their post within five years, of whom more than half (54%) quit teaching in state-funded schools.[12]

• More than a third (37%) of secondary head teachers left their post within five years, more than two in three (67%) of whom left teaching in state-funded schools.

• More than a third (37%) of secondary deputy head teachers left their post within five years, almost two-thirds (62%) of whom left teaching in state-funded schools.

• Almost four in 10 (39%) secondary assistant head teachers left their post within five years, almost half (49%) of whom left teaching in state-funded schools.

14.  In middle leadership roles

• Approaching half (46%) of primary middle leaders left their post within five years, of whom four in 10 (41%) left teaching in state-funded schools.

• More than four in 10 (44%) secondary middle leaders left their post within five years, of whom more than half (55%) left teaching in state-funded schools.

15.  For completeness we provide the full data set below, in tables.

Source: Addendum to School leadership in England 2010 to 2020,

DfE, 9 June 2022

16.  NAHT’s survey evidence found steeply rising dissatisfaction with school leadership as a career choice. The number of school leaders who would recommend school leadership fell by over a third (36%) between 2020 and 2021, from 47% to 30% in a single year.

Source: Fixing the Leadership Crisis, NAHT, December 2021[13]

17.  More than half (53%) of respondents who were not currently a head teacher indicated that they did not aspire to headship, while the reluctance to take on full responsibility for leading a school appeared to have become an established and increasing trend, rising by about a third since 2016 (from 40% to 53%).

18.  We asked what would improve the attractiveness of school leadership.  Leaders identified the following factors:

Source: Fixing the Leadership Crisis, NAHT, December 2021

19.  A combination of lack of respect for school leaders’ professional expertise, crushing workload, the negative impact of high stakes inspection and accountability, lack of opportunities to work flexibly and falling real terms pay are key factors in the struggle to recruit and retain school leaders.

20.  The stress and pressure associated with school leadership roles, combined with long working hours, are contributing to a well-being and mental health crisis, that is also undermining leadership aspiration and the career continuum.

Source: Fixing the Leadership Crisis, NAHT, December 2021

What action should the Department take to address the challenges in teacher recruitment and retention?

21.  Broad action is needed to support leadership aspiration, recruitment and retention.  A range of non-pay issues should be urgently addressed by the Department for Education.  These include:

• reform of inspection and accountability measures to remove drivers of unnecessary workload, fear and stress
• tackling school leaders’ heavy workload and reducing their working hours
• empowering school leaders to make decisions that best meet their learners’ needs, free from centralised diktat and control
• a commitment to full engagement, meaningful consultation and genuine collaboration with the profession’s representative bodies when developing policy.

22.  Our quantitative and qualitative evidence demonstrates that pay is an integral element of leaders’ dissatisfaction, with approaching half (44%) of leaders stating that improved pay progression would make school leadership more attractive.[14] 

23.  Pay is also the simplest determinant to solve in the short term.  Government should make an immediate commitment to restore the real terms value of all teaching and leadership salaries to 2010 levels, and also restore the pay differential for leadership roles and experienced teachers.  This would send a strong signal of value to the profession.

24.  In real terms, the detriment to school leaders’ salaries increased from 15% for the period 2010-21, to 19% in 2022, even when the 5% pay uplift to salaries recommended by the Review Body, and accepted by government, is taken into account.[15]  School leaders’ salaries have lost about a fifth of their value since 2010 when measured against CPI inflation or more than a third against RPI inflation.

25.  The table below illustrates the losses for the L7 point on the leadership pay scale (around the median salary for an assistant or deputy head teacher) and the L20 point (the median salary for a primary phase head teacher).

Source: NAHT analysis comparing annual uplifts to L7 and L20

pay points against ONS CPI inflation data

26.  The pay of experienced teachers and school leaders has declined sharply, as the negative growth of teaching professionals’ real terms earnings has been outstripped by the positive growth of average UK earnings, as can be seen in the chart below.  The trajectory for school leaders’ pay is slightly worse than that of experienced teachers due to the differential pay rises of recent years which delivered greater real terms detriment to leaders’ salaries.

Teachers pay is lower in real terms than in 2010/11 and has lost competitiveness relative to the wider economy over the last decade

Source: Short supply: addressing the post pandemic teacher

supply challenge in England, NfER, January 2023

27.  The salary differential between upper pay range point 3 (£43,685) and the minimum point on the leadership pay range (£44,305) is just £620 per annum. This is a strong disincentive to leadership.  Why would a teacher take on the risk of the weighty responsibility and accountability of leadership for around £50 a month before tax, national insurance, pension and student loan deductions?

28.  Improving the competitiveness of pay relative to the wider economy is part of a two-step approach to solving the supply crisis in teaching.  The first step is external facing.  This requires the restoration of pay in real terms, and at a faster rate than average earnings.  Pay uplifts for teaching professionals must therefore be market leading – that is ahead of private sector pay rises. [18]

29.  The second step is to restore pay differentials for experience and leadership.  The answer to the problem that teaching salaries are too low to attract

graduates and career changers is not to increase starting pay and then to reduce salaries for experienced staff and those taking on leadership responsibility. Doing so reduces the incentive for teachers to remain in the profession, because pay progression is limited, especially when annual below inflation uplifts result in real terms pay cuts.  It also reduces the incentive to seek

progression into leadership. [19] [20]

30.  If teaching is to be regarded in the same terms as other professions, it is clear that reform of the pay structure, consideration of pay progression and establishment of appropriate pay differentials for leadership responsibility are essential components of a compelling proposition for a decades-long career in teaching.  This must include:

• an appropriate starting salary

• clear career and salary progression points
• opportunities to develop different career pathways underpinned by appropriate funded training, development and reward.

31.  The vision should be of a decades-long career in education with clear career and salary progression points, and flexible, and sustainable career pathways that are underpinned by appropriate opportunities for funded training and development.  Both the early career framework and national professional qualifications offer a step in the right direction, but their narrow, prescriptive, and centralised nature do not speak to the professional autonomy and independence required for teachers and leaders to thrive.  Furthermore, there is little clear evidence to suggest that the national qualifications contribute significantly to retention rates.

32.  NAHT has been consistent and clear about the initial steps that should be taken.  What’s required is:

• a reformed national pay structure with mandatory minimum pay points, and pay portability

• a comprehensive review of the factors that determine leadership pay

• a professional pay continuum that supports new career pathways and delivers pay progression for teachers and school leaders

• codification of executive leadership roles within a revised STPCD, and inclusion or alignment of school business leader roles with the leadership pay range

• comprehensive analysis of the gender pay gap and determine actions to eliminate pay gaps for all protected characteristics to ensure pay equality and equity

• protected leadership time for assistant and deputy head teachers

• establishment a range of ‘key worker’ packages

• a system that delivers timely pay uplifts

• commitment to full funding of future pay uplifts

• a statement on reasonably expected working hours for leaders.

How well does the current teacher training framework work to prepare new teachers and how could it be improved?

What has been the impact of the Early Career Framework?

33.  NAHT endorsed the DfE’s 2019 Teacher Recruitment and Retention Strategy and supported the development of a longer induction period for newly qualified teachers, underpinned by a framework of fully funded early career support, including funded mentoring.

34.  When announced, we were disappointed with government’s decision that full funding would only be provided for schools choosing to use government’s official providers, ignoring much existing good practice, and that what had been originally conceived as a programme of support for and early career teachers (ECTs), had become an early career curriculum.

35.  Mentors and ECTs complained about the weight, inflexibility and workload associated with the programme, all of which had been originally conceived as being workload neutral.  Survey evidence showed that although just over half (55%) supported the notion of an extended two-year programme, almost all those who expressed an opinion told us that it was generating new and additional workload (95%) for ECTs, and was negatively affecting the workload of mentors (99%).[21]

36.  NAHT had warned that late implementation and the continuing pandemic would create challenging conditions for a full roll out.  We pressed DfE to review providers’ practices to ensure that programmes could be delivered and managed within the time made available for the programme during working hours.  We also urged the Department to return to this original intention to provide a programme of support that could respond better to individual ECTs needs as they arose by securing much greater flexibility for schools in the delivery of providers’ programmes.

37.  The Department has taken some steps to improve delivery, but NAHT’s view remains that the ECF remains over prescriptive, too centrally driven, and that it continues to drive unnecessary workload.  This risks undermining professional agency, autonomy and independence, which our survey evidence clearly indicates has the potential to negatively impact retention – exactly the opposite impact to the stated policy intent.  

What particular challenges exist in teacher recruitment, training and retention for teachers from different demographic backgrounds? 

How well does the demographic makeup of the teaching workforce reflect that of the pupils they teach?

38.  NAHT welcomes the Committee’s focus on this area - addressing disparities within teaching must not be seen as a separate issue, but rather a holistic part of the recruitment and retention discussion.

39.  A general consensus agrees that the teaching workforce does not currently reflect the make-up of wider society, and that this is particularly acute at leadership level.

40.  The Department’s demographic data is incomplete. NAHT urges the Committee to explore these gaps and ensure this is reflected in any conclusions, alongside existing information and/or available data.

• All ethnic groups except white are under-represented at all career stages of the teaching profession, except for initial teacher training (ITT)[22].

• 86 per cent of publicly funded schools in England have all-white senior leadership teams, and 60 per cent of schools in England have an all-white teaching staff[23].

• Analysis of DfE data[24] suggests that the proportion of ethnic minority pupils has been increasing at a much faster rate than the proportion of ethnic minority teachers.

• At primary level, there has been a 3-percentage point increase in ethnic minority teachers since 2010, but an 8ppt increase in ethnic minority pupils.

• At secondary level, there has been a 5 ppt increase in ethnic minority teachers since 2010, but a 12 ppt increase in ethnic minority pupils.

• The latest school workforce data indicates that women continue to be under-represented in senior leadership; women make up 76.8% of classroom teachers but only 69.4% of head teachers[25].

• In the latest school workforce census[26], disability data was only collected for 47% of teachers. Using the (limited) information gathered, the Department for Education suggested that 1% of teachers are disabled. This compares to 4% of pupils who had an EHC plan and 12.5% of pupils had SEN support in 2022.

41.  The DfE’s focus on improving diversity is too limited, piecemeal or even forgotten (an example being the Early Career Framework).  To improve recruitment and retention from a diverse range of backgrounds, it is vital that DfE embed a strategy across all facets of its work.

42.  DfE should also consider the effectiveness of its strategies in securing greater diversity in the pipeline into leadership. School leadership can be isolating, and this can be exacerbated for individuals who are under-represented in leadership.

43.  As part of the ‘statement of intent’ the Department for Education previously committed £2m to funding nationwide equality and diversity hubs to support aspiring leaders, including those from ethnic minority backgrounds, into headship. However, funding for Hubs was discontinued after 2020. While such initiatives are not a panacea, they play a critical part in support aspiring leaders from a diverse range of backgrounds to progress.  It is essential that appropriate, long-term resourcing is provided by the government, coupled with proactive and explicit strategy.

44.  Evidence from NAHT’s Disabled Members Network, indicates that the pressures of school leadership, particularly workload and the stress associated with high stakes inspection and accountability, can act as a barrier to progression for disabled teachers and leaders.

45.  Such pressures can affect openness about disability status (particularly for those with hidden impairments), contributing to teachers and leaders feeling a need to ‘mask’ their impairments.  This impedes access to reasonable adjustments, and in more extreme cases, cause symptoms to worsen, and potentially lead to additional time away from work or even having to leave the profession all together.

46.  It is incumbent on DfE to create a more open and supportive working environment for disabled teachers and leaders, including funded support, advice and resources for employers (and governors); from recruitment through all key career stages, including phased retirement.

47.  NAHT’s Leaders for Race Equality network have highlighted the impact of bias and stereotyping as key barriers to leadership. Members talk of needing to ‘work twice as hard’ to prove themselves and have provided examples of the impact of stereotyping their careers (including being directed to pastoral roles, rather than curriculum leads). We signpost the Committee to the testimonies of Black, Asian and minority ethnic teachers and leaders, contained in our 2022 book ‘You Are Not Alone: Leaders for Race Equality.

48.  Alongside the cumulative and damaging impact of ‘microaggressions[27]’ members have faced both overt and covert racism, in their journey to leadership. These experiences are reflected in recent findings from the Department’s ‘Working Lives’ survey[28], which found that Black or other ethnic minority background were more likely than White teachers or leaders to report bullying (15% vs. 11%) and discrimination (18% vs. 7%).

49.  All schools need access to high quality, fully funded, centrally agreed and mandatory anti-racism training for all staff as part of KCSIE training.

50.  Twenty years after the repeal of section 28 was revoked, members of our LGBT+ network speak of leaders who remain hesitant to be open about the fact that they are LGBT+, fearing the impact on their career. Others report difficulty of navigating some of the current tensions around LGBT+ inclusion in schools and the personal impact this can have on them, as LGBT+ leaders.

51.  In common with all members across all of our equality networks, our LGBT+ members highlight feelings of isolation and stress the value of access to mentoring and peer-to-peer support from other LGBT+ leaders.

52.  Our equality networks identify the need for increased and improved governor training, with three core foci:

• induction and recruitment procedures
• equality training
• ensuring deeper understanding of diversity within the curriculum

This should be underpinned by work to improve diversity in governing boards.

April 2023

14