This government entered office just over a year ago on a wave of goodwill from teachers and school leaders. There was hope that new government would be more open to listening to their concerns and recognising practical solutions.
Yet as the government works toward its target of recruiting 6,500 additional teachers, its policy choices are sending a different message: that school-led innovation may no longer be desirable.
The challenge of teacher supply is well documented. Persistent shortages in secondary subjects, particularly maths, physics, and computing, have been compounded by high attrition rates and declining interest in initial teacher training (ITT).
Although ITT recruitment has improved slightly, it still fell short by a wide margin in 2024, with secondary recruitment reaching just 62 per cent of the government’s target.
In response, the government has returned to familiar policy levers: reviewing bursaries, adjusting retention payments and refining the early career framework (ECF). These are sensible interventions, but they are not new; they have been used and adjusted repeatedly over the past decade.
The impact of financial incentives depends on the size of the payments. Within a tight fiscal context, their impact will be limited. For example, while bursaries have helped boost STEM recruitment, those subjects still filled only 61 per cent of their target in 2024/25.
Meanwhile, the ECF, though positively received in principle, has encountered challenges, particularly in the workload it imposes and the inconsistency of its implementation.
Without significant new investment, these tools alone are unlikely to deliver the government’s targets.
Novel ideas are needed but, unfortunately, recent decisions suggest the space for schools and trusts to innovate is shrinking.
The space for schools and trusts to innovate is shrinking
Take, for instance, the government’s intervention in United Learning’s proposed pension scheme. The trust had planned to offer teachers a voluntary, opt-in scheme that allowed them to adjust the balance between pension contributions and take-home pay.
The aim was not to reduce overall remuneration, but to give teachers greater control over how their compensation was structured. For example, a younger teacher might choose a higher salary now in exchange for lower pension contributions, while others might opt to maximise long-term benefits.
The proposal was controversial, but a 2025 study by the Education Policy Institute found that around one in six teachers would prefer a higher salary now, even at the cost of a lower pension later. The idea also found favour with the Institute for Fiscal Studies and other researchers.
Despite this evidence, and the scheme’s voluntary nature, the Department for Education reportedly applied pressure behind the scenes, leading to the proposal being at best delayed and at worst dropped altogether.
The episode raises a broader question: if a large, experienced trust cannot pilot a voluntary, evidence-based pay strategy, what scope remains for innovation in workforce policy?
This tension between national consistency and local innovation is not new, but it is becoming more acute.
The government’s proposed schools bill includes provisions to extend national pay and conditions to all academies and require them to follow the national curriculum. The aim of increasing teaching standards is the right one.
However, a survey of trust CEOs found that nearly 40 per cent believe the teacher qualification requirements would undermine their ability to grow teachers through support roles, and 17 per cent feel that imposing the national curriculum would be a problem for them, particularly when it comes to adapting the curriculum in special schools.
These are meaningful minorities of school leaders using their discretion to improve outcomes for their pupils – efforts that risk being curtailed.
There is a growing risk that the government is moving toward greater centralisation, with reduced tolerance for variation even when that variation is informed by evidence and designed to improve teacher retention.
This shift may be driven by a desire for fairness and consistency, but it risks undermining the flexibility that has enabled some trusts to respond effectively to local challenges.
If the government is serious about meeting its teacher recruitment target, it must create the conditions for innovation, not stifle them. That means supporting schools that trial new ideas, encouraging evidence-led reform, and recognising that flexibility is a strength, not a liability.
The teacher workforce challenge is complex. There are no silver bullets. But progress depends on a policy environment that welcomes rather than resists the ideas that might help.
Your thoughts