‘Unclear' how Labour's pledge to recruit 6,500 teachers will address shortages
The Department for Education (DfE) should look at changes to contractual and working conditions – such as flexible working, according to the report from the cross-party group of MPs.
It added that the DfE should assess pay against other recruitment and retention initiatives to make a decision on whether it needs to do more to ensure teachers are paid the right amount.
During the election campaign, Labour pledged to recruit an additional 6,500 new teachers over the course of its five-year parliamentary term.
But the report said it is 'unclear' how meeting this pledge will ensure there are enough teachers in the right areas.
The PAC said: 'It is worrying the Department does not have a clear baseline or milestones against which to measure progress and be held accountable over the coming years.'
The DfE gave 'no clear explanation' of how the pledge was calculated or how it will fill gaps, with an estimated need of up to 12,400 more teachers in colleges alone by 2028/29, it added.
The report said workload is cited as the top reason for teachers leaving their jobs, and pupil behaviour is 'an escalating challenge' which school staff face.
The MPs have called on the DfE to collect data on the effectiveness of its behaviour hubs, and to roll them out further if they prove to be successful.
The PAC report found that teacher vacancies and the challenges of retaining experienced teachers are 'greater for schools in deprived areas'.
Around a third (34%) of teachers in the most disadvantaged schools had less than five years of experience, compared to 20% in the least disadvantaged schools, it highlighted.
These schools also suffer teacher shortages in specialist subjects, such as in computing, and the report warned that disadvantaged students are 'at risk of being locked out of particular careers' due to a lack of trained teachers.
Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Olney, a member of the PAC, said: 'The shortfalls laid out in our report show how urgent it is that DfE lay out the detail behind its pledge for 6,500 more teachers.
'The Committee is calling for the Government to take a serious look at working conditions, flexible arrangements and increased pay for teachers.
'It is important to stress that this Committee's role is not to make recommendations on policy – our report makes clear that Government should be exploring conditions and pay as value for money measures alongside the other recruitment and retention initiatives it is carrying out.'
In May, the Government announced a 4% pay increase for school teachers and school leaders in England from September.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said schools would receive an additional £615 million of funding this financial year to help with the costs, but schools would have to find around 1% of the pay awards themselves.
Pepe Di'Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), said: 'We share the concerns about the lack of clarity over the government's pledge to deliver 6,500 new teachers.
'This does not seem anything like enough to address future need and we would urge ministers to address actual teacher shortages rather than fixate on a figure which is largely meaningless.'
He added: 'The impact of national teacher shortages is often most damaging in schools and colleges serving disadvantaged communities where recruitment and retention can be particularly hard.
'This is exactly where we most need a ready supply of teachers and leaders and the fact this is difficult to secure is a major obstacle in narrowing attainment gaps.
'The rising number of teachers leaving the profession because of pupil behaviour is also a major cause of concern.
'We hear from school and college leaders on a regular basis over just how challenging this issue has become in recent years.
'Behaviour policies are robust but there must be wider action to provide schools and colleges with specialist support and investment to address the variety as well as the complexity of needs that children and young people are exhibiting.'
Jack Worth, school workforce lead at the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), said: 'It is critical that the Government takes action now and delivers a comprehensive plan to tackle the issues that are impacting recruitment and retention or it will miss its 6,500 teacher recruitment pledge.
'Schools are anxious to see the details of the Government's plan for supporting teacher supply.'
Shadow education secretary Laura Trott said Labour's manifesto pledge to hire more teachers had descended into 'chaos'.
She said: 'They promised that taxing education would pay for new staff, yet that money is now being diverted to house illegal immigrants. Their first milestone for school readiness was hiring 6,500 new teachers, but instead there are 400 fewer.
'Under Labour, teacher numbers are falling. This Government is defined by U-turns and broken promises. Parents, teachers, and children deserve better.'
A Department for Education spokesperson said: 'This Government is already delivering on our pledge to recruit and retain 6,500 more talented teachers with 2,300 more secondary and special schoolteachers in classrooms this year, as well as 1,300 fewer teachers leaving the profession – one of the lowest leave rates since 2010.
'Since day one, the Education Secretary has worked to reset the relationship with the education sector, announcing pay awards of almost 10% over two years and committed to tackle high workload and poor wellbeing including encouraging schools to offer more flexible working opportunities.
'We are committed to working with teachers as partners in the push for better, driving high and rising standards through our Plan for Change to enable every child to achieve and thrive.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Britain is broke: how inflation-linked debt costs us £60bn
Britain is broke. That was the depressing conclusion of the Office for Budget Responsibility's annual report on the future of the public finances published this week. Of course the fiscal watchdog did not choose those exact words. Instead it used 65,000 other words, but if you were to distil the overall message, it's hard to come to a different conclusion. The watchdog chose to focus its report this year on the ruinous cost of the triple-lock pension promise and the strain that net zero will place on the public purse. But in Westminster, all the talk is about how a little-known policy decision made decades ago is putting the government in an uncomfortably tight fiscal straitjacket. That decision was to start promising investors who lent money to the government that their cash would be protected from the ravages of inflation. Or in more technical language, the government started issuing index-linked gilts that were tied to the retail prices index (RPI) measure of inflation. This innovation meant investors could lend the government money safe in the knowledge that if inflation rose, the amount of interest they would receive and the amount returned at the end of the term of the loan would rise so the real value of their investment would never fall. Conventional gilts offer no such protection. The lender is just paid a fixed amount of interest each year, and a fixed amount of cash is returned at the end of the term. The consequences of this policy for the public purse are only now beginning to be felt because of the higher levels of inflation since the pandemic. The numbers are stark. In 2020 the government spent £25 billion a year on debt interest, but in the last tax year it spent £105 billion. By comparison, it spends £60 billion on schools, £55 billion on defence and £20 billion on the police. So who is to blame and how did we get here? The short answer is politicians. The long answer is more complicated. Decisions on the type of debt to issue each year are made by the chancellor but they are informed by officials and subject the demands of the market. The record shows that particularly high levels of index-linked gilts were issued under the chancellorships of Gordon Brown and George Osborne. However, the policy itself was first introduced by Geoffrey Howe, who was chancellor in 1981. Howe made the decision in part because the early Thatcher government was struggling to borrow what it needed after the economic crises of the 1970s, but also because it signalled that the Treasury was serious about cracking down on inflation. By promising to protect the real value of money lent to the Treasury, investors were reassured that the new government would not repeat the reckless and inflationary policies of the previous decade. There was also strong demand for this type of government debt from the pensions industry because it helped to fund the inflation guarantees in final salary schemes. • OBR rings alarm on pensions, climate change and the fiscal rule In the decades that followed, index-linked gilts, or 'linkers' as they became known, were hailed as a clever innovation because they met this demand and actually saved the government money. The reason was that investors would accept a lower rate of return on index-linked loans than conventional gilts because of the inflation protection they offered. Provided the RPI rate remained low — and over the next few decades it generally did — the government benefited by having to pay less interest on its debts. Indeed, an official analysis in 2023 found that the Treasury cumulatively saved £158 billion by issuing linkers in place of conventional gilts between 1981 and 2022. However, the equation dramatically shifted in 2022 when inflation surged to a high of 14.2 per cent. Suddenly, the amount the government had to pay to service its debts ballooned. Britain's public finances were hit uniquely hard because over the preceding decades the UK government had issued so much more index-linked debt than anyone else. By 2022, nearly 25 per cent of Britain's outstanding borrowing was index-lined, more than twice as much as any other G7 country. Italy has the next highest holding at 12 per cent but US debt has only 7 per cent and Germany less than 5 per cent. This meant that between 2019 and 2022, debt interest costs increased faster in the UK than in every other OECD country. The proportion of this increase that is down to linkers is subject to debate because the pandemic greatly increased government borrowing generally and the interest rates on conventional gilts also increased. However, an analysis by The Times of RPI rates and the stock of outstanding government debt, suggests the decision to issue linkers over conventional gilts cost the Treasury £62.8 billion in higher interest payments during 2022 and 2023. To put this in perspective, a penny on income tax raises only about £6 billion. These higher borrowing costs are set to continue for years to come as linkers mature and are repaid. It is one of the main reasons why the annual bill for servicing the nation's debt is set to hit £132 billion by 2030, according to the OBR. Whatever the exact cost of linkers, there can be no doubt that they have severely constrained Rachel Reeves's ability to enact meaningful policy, or borrow to invest in Britain's creaking public services. To make matters worse for the chancellor, investors in the gilt markets are acutely aware of the government's inflation-based debt problem so they scrutinise her every policy decision. Any move that suggests Labour might abandon fiscal responsibility rapidly raises the interest rates they demand to lend to the government. That is a major problem when the Treasury needs to borrow more than £250 billion this year and why these investors have been nicknamed the 'bond vigilantes'. The bond market really is an ever-present sword of Damocles hanging over the government. Anyone who doubts its power should remind themselves what happened to Liz Truss following her disastrous mini-budget. Perhaps understandably, no one is jumping to the front of the queue to take the blame for creating this situation. A Treasury source said that successive chancellors had to decide between the 'short-term attraction' of index-linked gilts and the longer-term risk. The 'red hot' demand from the pension industry made those decisions harder. However, the source admitted that, in hindsight, the issuing of index-linked gilts 'went too far'. While no politicians have publicly blamed the officials who advised them, questions have been asked about the role of civil servants. The principal official responsible for advising the government through the Brown and Osborne period was Sir Robert Stheeman, who was chief executive of the Debt Management Office (DMO), a Treasury agency created in 1998 when the Bank of England became independent. The DMO took on the bank's role of issuing and servicing gilts, with an objective to 'minimise financing costs over the long term, taking account of risk'. While there is no public record of Stheeman, who was earning £145,000 a year when he left in 2024, explicitly calling for more linkers, he did repeatedly describe them as a 'key part of the UK financing programme' and emphasised their cost advantages under certain market conditions. Last year, his replacement, Jessica Pulay, noted the markets' robust demand for index-linked gilts. However, ascribing any blame to officials at the DMO is tricky because they have no decision-making role and are only there to advise and execute government orders. So as successive chancellors were making merry in the bond markets, drunk on the illusion that inflation was a historic problem, did anyone raise the alarm? The short answer is very few. There were some warnings but they were muted. For example, in the mid 2010s, the House of Lords economic affairs committee highlighted that the UK's large share of inflation-linked debt made the public finances unusually vulnerable to inflation shocks — however it was presented only as a theoretical risk. Given the extended period of low inflation the country had benefited from, few took much notice. It was only when the OBR raised the alarm in 2017 that the Treasury decided to act. In the 2018 budget, Philip Hammond announced the government would gradually reduce the proportion of index-linked gilts it issued. Over the next five years, the share of government borrowing raised using linkers fell from 23.5 per cent to 12.4 per cent. However, it was too little, too late. Decades of much higher levels of issuance, and the fact that the inflation uplift on these debts kept their value rising, meant that by 2022, when inflation surged, more than 25 per cent of all outstanding gilts were still index linked. Rumours in Westminster suggest that for years the Treasury did not want to address the risks because linkers were considered a useful tool to constrain excessive departmental spending and the profligacy of No 10. The theory is that having a high proportion of index-linked gilts meant that large increases in public spending would be inflationary and therefore prohibitively expensive. Whether that theory is true, remains to be seen. However, what cannot be disputed is that Britain's debt experiment will handicap chancellors for years to come.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Ex-British Army chief says conflict with Russia a ‘realistic possibility'
General Sir Patrick Sanders, the former head of the British Army, has warned that the UK must prepare for the possibility of war with Russia within the next five years. Sir Patrick stated that a conflict with Russia by 2030 is a "realistic possibility" and urged the government to swiftly improve national resilience. He criticised the UK 's lack of preparedness, citing stalled conversations about underground bunkers and insufficient funding for air defences, contrasting it with countries like Finland. Sir Patrick also highlighted that troop cuts have left the British Army"too small" for sustained engagement, with personnel numbers at their lowest since the Napoleonic wars. He concluded that recent defence budget increases are "pretty marginal" and that the UK needs to recognise the world is as dangerous as, if not more dangerous than, during the Cold War.
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
We used to have hope and compassion. Where did it all go?
The documentary reminded me that, 20 years after Live Aid, there was Live 8 on July 2, 2005, held in eight cities around the globe, including Moscow. That was the time of the Make Poverty History campaign, of the G8 in Gleneagles when world leaders, including Vladimir Putin, signed up to an accord to cancel debt owed by the poorest nations of the world and to boost aid to Africa. It was a time when President George Bush committed $15 billion to the fight against Aids in Africa and the Caribbean, saying that compassion was an American value. Looking at the hopes and aspirations of those times gone by and looking at the world as it is today, all I can ask is: where did it all go wrong? Doug Maughan, Dunblane. Who are they kidding? Who are Prime Minister Starmer and President Macron kidding if they think that their "one in, one out" pilot scheme is 'groundbreaking", will have a 'deterrent effect beyond the numbers actually returned" and will 'finally turn the tables"? At least there was no further mention of the sound bite pipe dream of "smashing the gangs" ('Starmer and Macron detail 'one in, one out' migrant pilot to curb crossings", The Herald, July 11). It is worth noting their scheme is to curb crossings, not stop them. A potential migrant was interviewed on TV this morning and unsurprisingly said it would not deter him. Hundreds come over each week and the risk of being one of those few selected (how?) to be returned is minuscule, and anyway the legal aid lawyers will be queuing up to challenge that selection and appeal again and again against it if necessary. We have huge numbers of migrants coming here to seek asylum through legal routes and that will no doubt continue, but the illegal migrants are paying the trafficking gangs to avoid any scrutiny. How can it be in our national security interests to have thousands of mainly young men, about whom we know little or nothing, dispersed around the country ? When will the Government act on its previous admission that it was its 'duty" to stop, not just curb, these illegal migrants? That will require it to enforce the sovereignty of the UK and its borders by legislating to create the real deterrent that illegal migrants are disqualified automatically, no ifs or buts, from staying here and will be arrested on arrival and held securely until they can be deported back to French waters from where they came. What else can we do to stop this illegal invasion? Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop. Read more letters What hope now for Labour? The only way to quiet the Farage foghorn is to turn the narrative away from 'irregular migration' to one of the many, many other pressing, sidelined issues. There are two problems with this. • The predominantly right-wing UK media loves the aggro and lazy one-trick-pony-ness of it as much as Nigel Farage. • It would take real leadership from Keir Starmer (sprinkled with some belief in his own policies) to achieve. Banging on about migration in wholly negative terms while doing precious little to fix the broken system that encourages the exploitation – including even acknowledging the disastrous role of Brexit – is too easy fuel for Reform UK and is lapped up by a swathe of the population, now comfortable in dressing their racism up as patriotism. Angela Rayner, who might contend as a real leader, has just been carpeted by her union for her role in the Birmingham bin strike ("Angela Rayner suspended by Unite union over bin strike", heraldscotland, July 11). I didn't know Angela Rayner ran Birmingham City Council. And anyway, it is high time the major unions – including the ones who keep orchestrating rail strikes – cottoned on that in a country where everything is either privatised or de-facto privatised and the job of a lot of councils is simply working out whose mates to give the contracts to, strikes only actually affect the suffering public who are already paying through the nose for failing and dysfunctional services. With Ms Rayner's wings clipped by an out-of-touch union, what hope is there that Labour leadership can change the discordant tune? At least we've got Keir Starmer's Trump visit to look forward to. Amanda Baker, Edinburgh. Why should we pay for Trump? It is said that the purpose of Donald Trump's visit is to open the new 18 hole-golf course at his resort in the north-east coast at Menie, north of Aberdeen. He is not expected to meet with King Charles in London. For all intents and purposes therefore, the visit is a business trip and the only political elements pertaining to the situation are due to the person making the trip. The trip of 2018 cost the UK taxpayer in the region of £18 million, £5m of which covered time spent in Scotland. Since the purpose of the 2025 trip is to further expand Trump business, why should the UK taxpayer be called to compensate the President for security/transport costs if they are in fact business expenses ("Police seek aid over cost of Trump Scots visit", The Herald, July 11)? The US taxpayer no doubt gazes dumbfounded as their Head of State boards Air Force One for yet another round of golf in warmer climes, but they voted for him. Scotland didn't. Maureen McGarry-O'Hanlon, Jamestown. • Do we really want to see US President Donald Trump in Scotland, pay at least £5 million for his security, and let him promote his golf courses? No, no, no! He's the most obnoxious, arrogant and ignorant numpty ever to inhabit the White House. Our police could instead deal with what really matters in our communities and I would urge our golfers to play different courses. Andy Stenton, Glasgow. • You report the news of a Presidential visit by The Donald this month. The last time around the security bill was many millions of pounds. The numbers of police being taken from their usual duties numbered thousands. In view of his seemingly singular undiplomatic views on all things American and many other countries, it gives way as to how to view the visit. Does one join with a large demonstration, of which there will be many to choose from, or stay at home like the multitude who care nought for him and the ideology he professes? It is a no-win situation for the police and the taxpayer. R Johnston, Newton Mearns. Wind industry is on holiday During this current heatwave when we need electricity for air conditioning the most, I couldn't help but notice the wind industry has gone off on holiday. The entire fleet of thousands of entirely parasitic, demonstrably useless giant wind turbines littering our once-beautiful countryside is barely able to provide the National Grid with 2% – reaching the dizzying heights of 1.46% to be precise. Will we get a refund of the vast annual record-breaking subsidy for poor or non-existent service? George Herraghty, Lhanbryde. Keir Starmer pictured with Emmanuel Macron earlier this week (Image: PA) Drink up, Canada I note Ross Greer's advice to John Swinney to "switch" Scots whisky exports from America to Canada ("'Switch our whisky exports from US to Canada over Trump tariffs'", The Herald, July 11). Looking at this from the perspective of per head of population (335 million versus 40 million) this will require Canadians to increase their whisky consumption by a factor of 8.3. Good luck with that. Another example of sound political logic? Jon Cossar, Edinburgh. McDermid on the warpath Val McDermid has gone on the warpath ("Val McDermid: Politics is an 'absolute cesspit of misogyny'", heraldscotland, July 10). This is intriguing as Ms McDermid is very good friends with Nicola Sturgeon, who almost single-handedly removed the basic rights of all Scottish females to their own private space with her ill-thought-out gender reforms. Are we detecting yet more push-back against the very relevant Supreme Court decision on this matter which pointedly did not support Nicola Sturgeon's position ? You could write a book about all of this. Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow. Rough treatment Scotland looked wonderful yesterday (July 10) in the sun at the Scottish Open Golf at the Renaissance Club overlooking the Firth of Forth. The golf was also pretty good, with some Scots in contention and of course the fans behaved impeccably. The only slightly sour note was provided by the two heavies escorting Rory McIlroy, who seemed intent on preventing the young fans touching hands with their hero, shame. I am sure that Rory would not sanction such action. W MacIntyre, East Kilbride. Taps off, please The backdrop to Carol Kirkwood's BBC weather forecast today (July 11) was Battersea Park. The 20-plus fountains were majestically performing in full flow. The previous news item had stressed the need to conserve water due to the current weather. The watery spectacle seemed to contradict the public warning. Lack of communication or a complete disregard for common sense? Either way a prompt turn-off is required. Allan C Steele, Giffnock. Our 45 record Kristy Dorsey's article on the Eastwood Twelve ("The revival of golf at Eastwood: '12 is plenty'", The Herald, July 11) mentions people not wanting to take out the whole day to play 18 holes. Back in the day, three of us regularly played both of Hilton Park's courses, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, followed by nine holes on the shorter Allander course in the evening, only the twilight hours restricting our day's golf to 45 holes. We were known as the lopers, admittedly with no wives and families to be brought into the equation. David Miller, Milngavie. • Samantha Whitelaw, the manager of the 12 -hole Eastwood Golf Course, lists the advantages of the club's limited number of holes compared to the more conventional 18-hole course. As a former "holiday golfer", one of the attractions would be to claim that I could manage a round at my course in fewer than sixty strokes – but only on a good day. Malcolm Allan, Bishopbriggs.
