‘Now or never’ moment approaches for delivering Labour’s election teacher pledge
Labour’s general election pledge to ‘recruit 6,500 new expert teachers in key subjects’ was a prominent campaign feature and now a policy priority for the Government. It is much needed, given the poor state of teacher recruitment and retention
NFER’s annual report on the teacher labour market in England, published earlier this month, shows that recruitment into secondary initial teacher training was nearly 40 per cent below target last year and primary missed its target for the third consecutive year. Forecasts for this year predict both shortfalls will continue. Retention is also key: the recruitment targets are only so high because around 10 per cent of teachers continue to leave every year.
The impact of teacher shortages on secondary schools is growing, including vacancies increasingly remaining unfilled. There is more teaching by non-specialist teachers in maths and physics, and by unqualified teachers. Shortages are deepest in the STEM subjects that are so crucial to the future economy and in schools with the most deprived pupil intakes, which makes this challenge vital for Labour’s opportunity mission.
Achieving 6,500 additional teachers will require new measures to make teaching more attractive and reverse these trends. The manifesto allocated £450m to the commitment, but this is only enough to give schools and colleges the additional funding to employ 6,500 more teachers. Bold action will be needed to also attract enough new applicants into the profession to fill the roles.
The 2025 Spending Review is a key opportunity to fund policies that could deliver the pledge. It is, in fact, a critical ‘now or never’ moment, given how long it takes for any policy to show an impact.
For example, a significant pay increase to raise the much-depleted competitiveness of teacher pay in 2026/27 could lead to a boost in both recruitment and retention. This might lead to increased teacher numbers as measured in the November 2027 School Workforce Census, which would be published in June 2028, in time for a general election campaign. Conversely, implementation that is gradual or delayed deeper into the parliament would come with a significant risk of having nothing to show the electorate.
Pay increases are by no means the only route to achieving the goal. Indeed, achieving the pledge through pay rises alone would cost several billion pounds, which is infeasible within current fiscal constraints. A more targeted approach would be offering more remuneration for teachers in subjects that need most support, building on existing proven schemes of bursaries and retention payments. While more efficient than across-the-board pay rises, it could prove divisive among teachers.
Another alternative is bearing down on teachers’ workload, which exceeds that of other graduates during term time. Workload is teachers’ top reason for quitting but also, say many teachers, driven by the demands of school inspection and accountability. Would a workload reduction focus be consistent with the Education Secretary’s ‘new era of relentless improvement’? Big curriculum and assessment changes can also create extra workload. To succeed, the Government would need a workload reduction strategy that is fully integrated with its wider policy reform agenda.
The Government faces many difficult choices but must prioritise teacher recruitment and retention in the Spending Review to ensure a high-quality education for all children and fulfilment of a key election promise.
