Select committee: Education Committee

Conclusion 57

Second Report - Teacher recruitment, training and retention Published 17 May 2024 Paragraph 239 Addressed to Department for Education
Conclusion (the committee's words)
We welcome the progress made towards reducing teachers working hours, acknowledging that the 5-hour reduction between 2016 and 2019 was a move in the right direction. However, workload remains a top concern for teachers. We welcome the Department’s ambition to reduce working hours by a further 5 hours but urge that this needs to be achieved much sooner than the Department’s 3-year target.

From: Education Committee, Second Report - Teacher recruitment, training and retention (HC 119), paragraph 239, 17 May 2024

Government response

The government responded to the whole report on 16 January 2025 (deadline 17 July 2024).

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The government says it "will consider the report's findings and recommendations carefully" and points to its own programme, including recruiting an additional 6,500 teachers, while setting out agreement and disagreement on individual recommendations.

  • On extending the Teacher Workforce Model to further education, the Department says it "will continue to keep the schools and further education estimates separate" because of "the differing factors determining both the demand and supply of teachers".
  • On subject-level data, it says it "will explore publishing subject level leaver rates" in future School Workforce Census publications, but does not publish reasons for leaving by subject "due to small sample sizes".
  • On a bursary for career changers, it states "We do not believe there is a need to introduce a bursary specifically for career changers", noting that such trainees can access existing bursaries and scholarships.
  • On NPQ funding, it is "committed to continue delivering funded NPQs in 2025", with future funding "confirmed in due course following the multiyear Spending Review".

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error