What should STRB recommend for teachers’ pay from 2026?

The School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB) is currently developing its recommendations for teachers’ pay as part of the remit it was set by the Secretary of State in September.

The remit this year includes the STRB making recommendations on teacher pay for the next two academic years (2026/27 and 2027/28) and an indicative recommendation for the third year (2028/29), whereas previous remits have usually focussed just on setting pay for the following year. 

This blog is the second in a series looking at the issues affecting this year’s pay-setting remit. The first blog laid out the context of the remit, the issues involved in long-term pay setting and evaluated the pay proposal the Department for Education (DfE) made to STRB in light of the latest economic forecasts and recruitment and retention data.

In this second blog we use insights from NFER’s redeveloped teacher supply forecast and simulation model to look at what the implications of different STRB recommendations might be for teacher recruitment and retention trends. 

Our teacher supply forecast and simulation model enables us to forecast supply pressures and understand the likely impacts and costs of alternative policies 

NFER, funded by the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, has developed a new teacher supply forecast and simulation model. The model is an enhanced version of a simulation model we previously used for policy analysis (see here for an example). We published a blog earlier this month using the model to look at the prospects and policy options for physics teacher supply. 

The model uses the latest evidence on how teachers’ recruitment and retention decisions are influenced by economic and policy changes – particularly related to pay and financial incentives, as this is where the evidence is strongest – to predict how patterns of recruitment and retention behaviour might evolve under different policy scenarios. The model is closely aligned to the DfE’s Teacher Workforce Model (TWM). More details about our methodology are available here. 

In this blog we use the model to analyse the likely path of secondary teacher supply over the next four years under current policy proposals and forecasts of pupil numbers and the economy. We then use the model to assess the likely impacts and additional costs of different policy measures that STRB could pursue in its recommendations. 

Our modelling approach begins with a baseline scenario, which forecasts what may happen to teacher supply over the next four years under current policy. Even though it represents only a suggestion to STRB at this stage, we assume that DfE’s proposal for teacher pay awards over the next three years represents current policy. 

DfE’s evidence to STRB suggested that ‘a 6.5% pay award over 2026/27, 2027/28 and 2028/29 would be appropriate, with the level of awards weighted towards the latter part of the remit’. We assume a profile of pay increases of 1.5 per cent in 2026/27 and 2.5 per cent in 2027/28 and 2028/29. 

We assume in our baseline that the current targeted retention incentive (TRI) policy of retention payments for early-career physics, chemistry, maths and computing teachers is retained long term, even though this has not been officially confirmed by DfE.

We also assume that bursaries are maintained long term at their current level, although in the past these have varied in response to changes in the economic and policy context. 

Our model suggests that supply will improve in the short-term, but may weaken again under current policy 

Figure 1 shows the forecasted path of overall secondary teacher supply under current policy. This is a measure of teacher availability from recruitment and retention flows and does not necessarily predict how many teachers will be employed, as this will also depend on school’s vacancies, budget constraints and ability to deploy non-specialists to fill any supply gaps.  

Indeed, the model predicts that overall secondary supply was more challenging in 2024/25 than it was in 2023/24, with a predicted fall in supply of 1,200 teachers. This is a direct consequence of our model aligning with the TWM, which shows the same prediction.

This is despite School Workforce Census (SWC) data showing that the number of secondary teachers increased by 1,400 over the same period, contributing to DfE’s target of recruiting 6,500 teachers. However, SWC data also shows that the percentage of hours taught by teachers with a relevant post A level qualification fell from 87.4 to 86.9 per cent in 2024/25, indicating that despite the increase in teachers employed they were not necessarily all subject specialists. 

The figure shows that secondary teacher supply is likely to improve in the two years after 2024/25 under current policy as the increase in trainees entering teacher training over the last couple of years feed into the teacher labour market. 

This improvement is modest in size compared to the 6,500 teacher-target: the central forecast suggests an annual increase of 700 in 2025/26 and 1,600 in 2026/27. However, as noted above it is important to recognise that supply trends are just one factor in how many teachers secondary schools employ. Our modelling also only covers secondary teachers, whereas teachers in special schools/alternative provision (AP) and further education (FE) also count towards DfE’s target. 

Therefore, to meet its target the Government may have to rely on a combination of more teachers in special schools, AP settings and FE, and more non-specialist secondary teachers. Despite the uptick in trainees, the number of specialist secondary teachers coming through is unlikely to deliver the target on its own. 

Looking to the longer-term, the model forecasts that the supply of secondary teachers is likely to fall after 2026/27, by 1,300 teachers in 2027/28, and another 2,100 and 2,300 in the years after.

This prediction is driven by three key factors: 

• the impact of reduced bursaries in 2026/27, which we assume will continue, for eight subjects: design & technology, modern foreign languages, geography, biology, art & design, music, religious education and English.
• the impact of a three-year pay award (as proposed by DfE) that, over the long term and based on the latest economic forecasts, would slightly reduce the competitiveness of teacher pay compared to average earnings (as explored in the first blog).
• the anticipated recovery in the wider labour market, which is expected to lead to fewer teacher trainees compared to the current level, since a lower unemployment rate is associated with lower trainee numbers. 

However, as shown by the shaded areas, there is also plenty of uncertainty associated with these forecasts, especially further into the future. This is because forecasts have not been completely accurate in the past. 

The supply of secondary trainees is likely to fall faster than demand from next year, particularly in subjects where bursaries have been cut 

Secondary pupil numbers are expected to fall substantially from around 2029/30, so a fall in teacher numbers could mean matching the demand in the system. However, the model shows that this is not the case and that supply is forecast to fall faster than demand.

Our model looks at this by estimating what the ITT target – which implicitly accounts for changes in teacher need to due to pupil numbers – will be each year. As shown in Table 1, the model estimates that ITT recruitment is going to fall, even relative to target. This suggests teacher supply problems are worsening, even though there are fewer pupils. 

Table 1: Overall recruitment to secondary ITT as a proportion of the target is forecast by the model to fall substantially from next year under current policy

	2025/26	2026/27	2027/28	2028/29
Overall secondary recruitment target	19,210	18,899*	23,180*	28,073*
Recruitment as a proportion of target (%)
Secondary overall	88	72*	54*	43*
Maths	113	133*	99*	89*
English	106	100*	74*	66*
Biology	151	58*	44*	37*
Chemistry	118	108*	84*	71*
Physics	77	88*	88*	78*

Note: * indicates a forecast under current policy, whereas the data up until 2025/26 is the outturn data. 

One of the key factors noted above driving the downward trend in supply from 2026/27 is the reduction in bursaries for eight subjects. This means that other subjects that have not seen a change in bursary are less affected, including key shortage subjects.

As shown in Table 1, while maths, physics and chemistry recruitment compared to the target is expected to worsen somewhat from next year, other subjects that have seen bursary cuts (such as English and biology) are more greatly affected. 

This highlights that STRB’s recommendations are made not only amid the uncertainty of economic forecasts, but also policy uncertainty. DfE makes decisions about bursaries and targeted retention incentives and these tend not be announced far in advance. It is reasonable for STRB to account in its recommendations on pay for whether DfE is likely to revise bursary policy to alleviate future subject-specific supply concerns. 

A higher three-year teacher pay award could address some of the likely decline in teacher supply, but not all 

Given that DfE’s pay proposal being below average earnings is one of the contributory factors to the predicted decline in teacher supply long-term, it is natural to ask what impact STRB making different recommendations might have on secondary teacher supply. 

To explore this, we model the impact and additional cost of a pay award that is one percentage point higher than DfE’s proposal, with a 2.5 per cent award in 2026/27, followed by awards of 3.5 per cent in both 2027/28 and 2028/29. This amounts to a 9.5 per cent increase over the period, making it more generous than the currently expected growth in average earnings. 

It may therefore be towards the top of the range of realistic scenarios that STRB are considering. However, it is therefore instructive for understanding the policy space STRB are deciding within. For example, STRB could consider a combined pay award that sits between the scenarios presented, and the two scenarios give a sense of the likely range of resulting impact. 

Figure 2 shows a comparison between the central forecast of secondary teacher supply under current policy (baseline scenario) and the higher pay scenario.

First, the impact of the higher pay scenario only begins to affect supply from 2027/28 onwards. This is because pay awards take some time to affect teachers’ recruitment and retention decisions and subsequently impact on supply.

This means it is likely to have little bearing on whether the Government achieves its 6,500-teacher target during this parliament, as the 2027/28 teacher supply data will be reported in June 2028, perhaps the last data to be reported before the end of the parliament. 

Second, while a higher pay award may result in higher secondary teacher supply up to 2029/30 than it might do under current policy, it remains more likely to fall than to rise. This is due to the impact of bursary cuts and a recovering economy outweighing the impact of higher pay awards that increase the competitiveness of teacher pay.

Therefore, even under a higher pay award, more policy attention on improving teacher supply would be needed. Such action could include reversing the bursary changes, but this is beyond STRB’s control. 

Finally, the higher pay scenario would come with substantial additional salary costs, compared to current policy, of £240m in 2026/27, £660m in 2027/28 and £1.1bn in 2028/29 (as well as on-costs for schools and additional teacher training costs paid by central Government).

The tight fiscal environment means that additional Government funding would be required to support schools, otherwise schools would need to fund the higher pay award through cuts to already-stretched budgets. 

Table 2 shows the forecast of ITT recruitment compared to target from the higher pay award scenario. It shows that while ITT recruitment compared to target still falls in 2027/28 and 2028/29 across the board, recruitment for shortage subjects remains above or close to target in most cases. This is because bursaries remain high and unchanged, bolstering recruitment. 

Table 2: Overall recruitment to secondary ITT as a proportion of the target under the higher pay scenario sees more shortage subjects at or close to target

	2025/26	2026/27	2027/28	2028/29
Recruitment target	19,210	18,899*	23,180*	28,073*
Recruitment as a proportion of target (%)
Secondary overall	88	74*	60*	53*
Maths	113	137*	111*	110*
English	106	104*	83*	81*
Biology	151	61*	49*	46*
Chemistry	118	111*	93*	88*
Physics	77	90*	99*	98*

Note: * indicates a forecast under current policy, whereas the data up until 2025/26 is the outturn data. 

Conclusion 

Our model suggests that while the recent increase in trainees means DfE has more chance of reaching its 6,500-teacher target, the number of specialist teachers available remains relatively low, so the Government will likely rely on a combination of more teachers in special schools, AP settings and FE, and more non-specialist secondary teachers to meet it.

STRB has important decisions to make on teachers’ pay over the next three years, but their recommendations are unlikely to have much bearing on whether the target is met. STRB’s focus should be on ensuring teachers’ pay at least maintains competitiveness to support teacher supply when the wider labour market recovers. 

As the 2028/29 recommendation is only indicative, the key period for STRB to focus on is 2026/27 and 2027/28. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that average earnings are likely to grow by 5.3 per cent during the 2026/27 and 2027/28 financial years, meaning that STRB should at least be aiming to match this across the two years.

Our modelling suggests that an even higher pay award would bring longer-term supply benefits, but these should be weighed carefully against the financial pressures facing the Government and schools. 

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Dawson McLean and Sarah Tang for developing and building the simulation and forecast model and conducting the scenario analysis, and to the Gatsby Charitable Foundation for funding its development. Thanks also to Michael Scott for helpful comments on drafting.