National Employers Organisation for School Teachers evidence to the School Teachers’ Review Body - February 2024

1. The National Employer’s Organisation for School Teachers (NEOST) welcomes the opportunity to submit views in response to the School Teachers Review Body’s (STRB) call for evidence in relation to its 34th remit report. 
2. NEOST represents the voice of the national employers, Members include the Local Government Association (LGA), the National Society (Church of England and Church in Wales) for the promotion of Education, the Catholic Education Service, and the Confederation of School Trusts (CST). 
3. NEOST acts as the single statutory employer representative body when submitting evidence to the STRB. 
    

4. NEOST’s headline responses to the STRB’s call for evidence relating to the Government’s published remit for the 34th Report is as follows:  

• NEOST welcomes the additional funding that has been targeted to the core school’s budget. In 2024-25 the core schools’ budget will be £59.6bn. This is an increase of three per cent, in cash terms, compared to 2023-24.
• NEOST notes that financial concerns (set against a reported backdrop of increasing numbers of both maintained and academy schools operating with deficit budget positions) continue to be balanced against ongoing recruitment and retention challenges of all teachers and leaders.
• NEOST highlights a continuing tension between what school employers might anticipate or view as a reasonable award for 2024/25, and what they understand to be affordable. (We identified an affordability gap of one per cent in our survey results (detailed on page 13), with the majority of schools budgeting for 3-3.99 per cent whilst estimating only a 2-2.99 per cent pay award for 2024 was affordable for all their schools).
• NEOST notes that the vast majority (83 per cent) of our stakeholders indicated that a pay award applied to all ranges equally would best support recruitment and retention in schools.
• NEOST highlights that the teachers’ pay bill is one of the highest demands on overall school budgets and recognises that not all schools are in the same financial position. NEOST continues to argue that adequate, sustainable funding is needed to ensure any proposed pay award can be fully implemented by all schools.
• NEOST reminds the STRB and colleagues across Government of the unique timetable pressure for this pay review body in relation to school term time and Academy Trust financial reporting cycles. NEOST would welcome the publication of the STRB’s 34th Report as early as possible allowing schools to consult, plan and implement any changes to the School Teachers Pay and Conditions Document within term time, and meeting the implementation date of 1st September (removing the complicated requirement to backdate any such pay award).

5. The 2022 School Workforce Census (SWC 2022) recorded 468,371 full-time equivalent (FTE) teachers (48 per cent of the whole school workforce), who are potentially in scope for any recommended pay award for 2024/25.

6. NEOST notes that the number of entrants into teaching continues to be higher than that of teachers leaving (4000 more than in 2021), meaning an overall increase in the number of teachers in England.  However, in terms of retention, the SWC 2022 recorded 43,997 full-time equivalent (FTE) teachers leaving the profession in 2022, 7,800 more than in 2021. Teacher vacancies have also increased from 1,600 in November 2021 to 2,300 in November 2022, alongside an increase in temporarily filled posts, from 2,200 to 3,300. This illustrates the continued ‘leaky pipeline’ in retaining teachers, with teachers continuing to leave the profession in significant numbers.  NEOST, therefore, asks for more support in helping employers retain as well as attract and recruit good teachers. 

7. The School Teachers Pay & Conditions Document (STPCD) is a statutory document that all maintained schools must apply, which sets out the minimum starting salaries for all teachers and leaders as well as advisory pay points for classroom teachers.

8. Although Academy Trusts (ATs) are not obliged to follow the STCPD, our evidence (previously reported) suggests that the majority of them do. The Local Government Associations’ (LGA) Employer Link (EL) service carried out research with a group of ATs and discovered that over 70 per cent of them followed the STCPD “to the letter”. A higher percentage also told EL that they do follow the STCPD but apply some flexibility to align with their organisational priorities. The National School Trust Report found that 94 per cent of trusts followed the national pay and condition arrangements for teachers and support staff, with a further four per cent applying them just for teachers.

9. The strategic lead for the education of children and young people is provided by 152 English LAs. Maintained school pay decisions are delegated to individual schools and their governing bodies in regulations under the Education Act 2002. However, local authorities are the employers of teachers in community and voluntary controlled schools and the governing board is the employer in voluntary aided schools. 

10. In the academy sector, the AT is the employer.

11. It is worth noting that this pay round follows an extremely difficult industrial relations environment during the last academic year, with three unions having held industrial action ballots in dispute with the SoS over the 2022 pay award. In July 2023, teachers in England accepted the government’s decision to implement the STRB’s pay recommendation of 6.5 per cent. The government also committed to providing additional funding equivalent to an estimated three per cent of the increase to an average school's teacher pay bill and an additional £40 million ‘hardship fund’. The Government also made a commitment to establish a task force to support the government's target of reducing the workload of teachers by five hours over the next three years. This settlement was welcomed by employers and the unions jointly, and the planned strike action was called off. That said, we anticipate ongoing tensions in the industrial relations context for 2024/25.

The Secretary of State’s remit letter was published in December 2023 and asks for recommendations on:

• 'An assessment of the adjustments that should be made to the salary and allowance ranges for classroom teachers, unqualified teachers, and school leaders in 2024/25.’
• ‘Views on the potential benefits, in principle, of targeting remuneration by subject in the future.’ 

12. NEOST notes the paragraph we understand is consistently put to all public sector independent review bodies this year, asking them to take into account previous awards when making recommendations i.e., ‘It is vital that the STRB consider the historic nature of the 2023/24 award and the Government’s affordability position that will be set out further in written evidence.’
    
13. We note members of the STRB have been asked to have due regard to a number of other factors including:

• ‘The cost pressures that schools are already facing and may face over the year (and how they affect individual schools).’
• ‘Forecast changes in the pupil population and consequent changes in the level of demand for teachers.’   

14. Therefore, having engaged all key stakeholders, we set out below NEOST’s evidence and views on the relevant matters which we hope will support your deliberations when making your recommendations on teachers’ pay for 2024/25.

To inform this evidence and response LAs and EL members were invited to complete an online survey to inform this response. We have:

• Appendix A, LA only results
• Appendix B, AT only results
• combined results in Appendix C.

We received 150 responses to our survey this year, a 47 per cent increase on last year mainly due to the significant increase in the response rates from ATs. The chart below provides the full breakdown and a comparison of the response rate from last year (2022/23).

NEOST is very pleased with the increased response rate since last year, bearing in mind the timetable necessitated the survey being run over the Christmas period and ending at the start of the January term which is a busy time for schools. 

LAs and ATs provided views based on a combination of the data they hold, direct feedback from schools where possible, and their own knowledge, and experience. In addition, this submission benefits from feedback from nine regional HR networks (members from which provide support to both maintained schools and ATs), and a national sounding board of LA school HR practitioners from every region. We also took soundings via the EL national network of HR leads in Multi Academy Trusts (MATs), this covers approximately 300 ATs and over 3,000 academies. 

STRB members will notice we have steadily grown our involvement with the academy sector through EL and the CST. This provides greater confidence that NEOST is informed by and representative of employers across the education sector. In comparing responses between LAs and ATs they are broadly in-line with one another, and where we find a significant difference, we bring these to your attention in the results section of this report. 

We note the reported observation in the STRB’s 33^rd report last year which 

concluded ‘that the priority is correcting the general deterioration in teachers’ pay.’  Having noted ‘although more acute in some areas than others, there is almost no area where recruitment is sufficient.’

The latest initial teacher training census statistics for 2023/24 published in December 2023 indicate a further deterioration with just 55 per cent of the Initial Teacher Training (PGITT) targets for all subjects (secondary and primary) reached. This is a further decrease of five percentage points, down from 60 per cent in 2022/23. The target achieved for secondary subjects was 50 per cent down from 57 per cent in 2021/22. The DfE reported that the PGITT secondary target has not been met since 2012/13, except in 2020/21. This represents a decade long trend of the PGITT secondary targets not being met, which is clearly contributing to the recruitment and retention issues reflected in our survey. For employers, this is a very concerning picture, because creating a pipeline of future talent is critical. 

As was the picture last year, our stakeholders continue to report concerning levels of recruitment and retention difficulties across the school system and for the majority of roles. Primary schools continue to find it most difficult to recruit Head Teachers, closely followed by Experienced Teachers as shown in Chart 2 below. This is of serious concern to employers and indicates more work needs to be done to understand and address the reasons behind these difficulties, to improve teacher retention as well as recruitment rates, and to ensure a good supply of Experienced Teachers to fill available vacancies.  Funding to support effective employer led leadership development programmes and career paths to encourage aspiring leaders in schools to take on the role of primary school Head Teachers are worthy of particular consideration.

Where 1 is Not Difficult to Recruit and 5 is Most Difficult to Recruit to

Seventy per cent of responses indicated that secondary schools continue to experience the most difficulty in recruiting experienced teachers, followed by Head Teachers (52%), Chart 3. This may be due to the successes of attracting more Early Career Teachers in recent years, with larger increases in starting pay, which reached the £30,000 minimum statutory starting salary in 2023 (for which the Government must be congratulated). However, reported difficulties in recruiting to Experienced Teachers, could also be reflecting employer preferences for ‘job ready’ teachers who do not fall under the two-year Early Careers Framework provisions and can quickly support continued school improvement. Experienced Teachers could be viewed as needing less costly development and resources, representing good value for money, as they have attracted smaller pay increases in recent years.  Whatever the driver behind this evidence, Experienced Teachers are clearly in demand, not least in order to mentor Early Career Teachers and to support ‘catch up’ tutoring for those children who may have fallen behind academically. So, the recruitment challenge here is going to be a worry for many school employers.

Where 1 is Not Difficult to Recruit to and 5 is Most Difficult to Recruit to

Primary schools report the most difficulty retaining Experienced Teachers, closely followed by Early Career Teachers as shown in Chart 4. That said there are also reported difficulties across the primary teaching workforce, in retaining Head Teachers, (which we also reported last year) with 43 per cent of LA’s and 25 per cent of ATs reporting high levels (ratings of 4 & 5) of difficulty in retaining Head Teachers.  We suggest the difference in our two survey groups here could be reflected by the fact that a lower number of primary schools are academies.

Where 1 is Not Difficult to Retain and 5 is Most Difficult to Retain

This is echoed by secondary schools who also continue to find it most difficult to retain Experienced Teachers as well as reporting significant difficulties retaining Early Career Teachers. Please see Chart 5.

Where 1 is Not Difficult to Retain and 5 is Most Difficult to Retain

The National School Trust Report asked trust leaders what barriers they face in delivering a high-quality education. Whilst budget was reported as the greatest barrier (79 per cent of respondents), recruitment and retention came second at 54 per cent, and was the reason cited as the most significant challenge by three out of four trust leaders.

The existing recruitment and retention challenges of all teachers across the school system, but in particular Experienced Teachers, are balanced against ongoing concerns around financial constraints which underlines the importance of getting the pay award and funding settlements right. 

We asked our stakeholders what factors (including the level of pay and exploring beyond that) they felt were driving their recruitment and retention difficulties. As with last year, our stakeholders ranked ‘Workload’ closely followed by ‘Wellbeing’ as the two most significant factors when considering the retention challenges for schools (see Chart 6). This underlines the point made by existing sector research, which highlights that pay is not the most important factor behind teachers leaving the profession.  While pay remains hugely important, broader issues of value and support remain crucial. To this end, NEOST welcomes the work of the DfE led task force, (and the invitation for NEOST representatives to contribute to that work), seeking to make recommendations to reduce the discretionary workload of teachers and leaders by five hours over the next three years.

Where 1 is Not Significant and 5 is Most Significant

ATs ranked the ‘level of pay’ as the third (63 per cent) most significant factor, coming third out of 8 possible options. Forty-nine per cent of LAs also ranked the ‘level of pay’ as the fifth most significant factor out of a total of 8. The DfE’s first wave of results from its Working Lives of teachers and Leaders longitudinal study reported in 2023 that the ‘majority of teachers and leaders were dissatisfied (61%) with the salary they received for the work they did’.  These perhaps unsurprising results demonstrate the important of getting teachers and leaders’ pay at the right level, taking into account current funding levels, and coupling this with a programme to improve workload and wellbeing - in order to improve existing recruitment and retention challenges faced by school employers. 

Stakeholders were asked to give their views on geographical factors that might provide a more nuanced understanding of some of the challenges. NEOST has consistently argued there is not one national picture for schools, and that schools have different financial and place-based challenges, this is reflected in these responses (Chart 7), indicating that schools in rural areas are most likely to face the most significant challenges in recruiting and retaining good teachers and experienced capable school leaders. However, 54 per cent of ATs, compared to 26 per cent of LAs, indicated that they experienced significant recruitment and retention challenges   in their coastal schools as well. Again, both rural and coastal areas have featured in previous NEOST surveys as areas that have experienced significant recruitment and retention challenges. 

Where 1 is Not Significant and 5 is Most Significant

NEOST welcomed the Government’s decision to fully implement and fund the STRB’s 2023/24 recommendations of a 6.5 per cent pay award for the majority of teachers and school leaders, with higher increases for Early Career Teachers, achieving the statutory minimum of £30,000. NEOST welcomed the additional funding to assist schools with meeting the cost of the pay award.

NEOST acknowledges the increase to school spending in England at recent Government spending reviews.

However, the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) Annual Report on Education Spending in England published in December 2023, calculated the funding increase will reverse past cuts and estimates that school spending per pupil in 2024 will return to 2010 levels in real terms based on standard measures of economy-wide inflation (the GDP deflator).The IFS report explains that rising inflation has eroded the purchasing power of schools (despite that increased funding) and notes that increases in staff pay have led to schools facing faster increases in costs than overall inflation.   

In 2024–25, the IFS estimate is that schools’ costs will grow by four per cent, which is just about matched by four per cent growth in total funding. After accounting for growth in schools’ costs, the IFS estimates that the purchasing power of school budgets in 2024 will still be about four per cent lower than in 2010. The recently announced ten per cent increase in the National Living Wage is likely to push up schools’ costs further, as this will impact on support staff, paid in line with the green book, settled by the National Joint Council for Local Government Services. NEOST is aware that national totals mask significant variation across schools, with some experiencing much greater financial challenges, and it is important that affordability assessments reflect this.

The LA and school expenditure report records that 48 per cent of Local authority (LA) maintained school expenditure was on teaching staff in 2022-23 (including spend on agency and supply staff). The latest data for academy trusts, for 2021/22, reports 52 per cent.  This is around half of a school's overall budget, with a higher percentage in many secondary and special schools.

The above report also records that 13.1 per cent of LA-maintained schools reported being in a deficit position, a five per cent increase since 2020-21, when the figure was 8.1 per cent. The Kreston Academies Benchmark Report identifies that 47 per cent of ATs had an in-year revenue deficit in 2022/23, up from 26% in the prior year. This is of serious concern and would explain why some employers in our survey (see Chart 8) indicated that no pay award would be affordable for all of their schools.

Turning now to the section of the STRB Remit letter which asks that consideration is given to “forecast changes in the pupil population and consequent changes in the level of demand for teachers” alongside the “cost pressures that schools are already facing and may face over the year (and how they affect individual schools).”  Firstly, we note that for this forthcoming year the IFS report estimates that in secondary schools and in special schools’ pupil numbers are projected to peak in 2024 - 2025, this peak will be followed by a drop in 2028 (projection period). Pupil population is expected to decline by 600,000 or 8% between 2024–25 and 2030–31, with a 400,000 reduction in primary school pupils and a 200,000 reduction in secondary school pupils. This will reverse almost all of the increases in pupil population since 2010–11 and will create less demand for school places. However, declining pupil numbers will only reduce spending need if schools are able to shrink their costs and staff numbers in equal measure and this is much harder to do in reality. In addition, falling pupil numbers are likely to impact areas and types of schools differently, so we are unlikely to see a uniform (or neat) reduction. For example, the London Councils report analysed London borough four-year forecasts of demand and found overall reductions in pupil numbers between 2022/23 to 2026/27 ranging from a 3.5 per cent reduction in year 7 pupils to a 7.3 per cent reduction in reception pupils.  As the majority of school revenue funding is allocated on a per pupil basis, any decrease in pupil numbers will reduce the funding a school receives, leading to schools having to make very difficult decisions in order to remain financially sustainable. NEOST is concerned about the likely negative impact on the quality of education offered and knock on impact on pupils’ outcomes. It is important that the Government recognises this pressure in the system and funds schools appropriately, so that all schools are more financially resilient and are better able to manage a decrease in demand or a surge in in-year admissions. NEOST also points to the teacher recruitment challenges as detailed above (including performance against the ITT targets) and would discourage the STRB from placing too much weight on this demographics issue.

We first asked what schools had budgeted for, in respect of any estimated 

2024/25 pay award for teachers. The results in Chart 8 below show a degree 

of variation in the percentage uplift estimated with the median average being 

3 – 3.99 per cent.

What is your LA recommendations for schools to budget (expressed as an overall percentage uplift) – in respect of any estimated 24/25 teachers’ pay award?

In keeping with previous surveys, we then asked an additional question to establish what percentage was considered to be affordable within current finances. The median      response was 2 -2.99% (which, in common with last year’s survey is a full percentage    point lower than is being budgeted for). It is a cause for concern, that only 42 per cent indicated that they could afford to implement an above two per cent pay award that 89 per cent of respondents are budgeting for. Also of concern is the 17 per cent of combined responses indicating that no increase at all in teachers’ pay was affordable for all their schools, that response shows an increase of four per cent from the same question in last year's survey. See Chart 9 below. 

What would your LA generally consider to be affordable for all schools in your area expressed as an overall percentage uplift) in respect of any estimated 2023/2024  teachers’ pay award?[DC1]

As referenced above, the majority of our stakeholders have told us that they have budgeted for a pay award for 2024/25 in the region of 3 – 3.99 per cent, whilst indicating that only 2-2.99 per cent is affordable. NEOST notes with concern, that 82 per cent of respondents indicated that any uplift in relation to the teachers’ pay award for 2023/24 that was higher than that estimated would have a “significant” impact on their budget. 

Schools cannot set deficit budgets, but our results indicate that the average employer is budgeting for more than it considers affordable, it would appear that employers are already considering making other organisational changes to account for this. The results (Chart 10 below) show that a significant proportion of our stakeholders would need to consider reductions in staff, although 21 per cent have told us it is too early to say which specific roles are likely to be reduced in order to fund a yet to be announced pay award for 2024/25.  However,15 per cent did indicate a reduction in Teaching Assistant (TA) roles would probably be the focus (up from 11 per cent last year), which if implemented is likely to increase workload for other support staff and teachers and therefore exacerbate wellbeing issues, impacting negatively on recruitment and retention rates overall. Excessive workload and wellbeing are already significant issues in schools, which is well documented and supported in the response to our survey (see chart 6 above) and which the Government is seeking to address as a priority.

If there will be a moderate or significant impact in reforecasting of budgets, what changes are likely to be considered to balance the school’s budget?

Please select three options

The percentage of potential reductions in TAs continues to be higher in the responses given by LAs (19 per cent), which is to be expected given the higher proportion of TAs in primary schools (and the higher proportion of primary schools still in the maintained sector). Although TAs are not covered by the STPCD, the role provides a significant resource for school leaders to deploy and helps to support the growing numbers of pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities, as well as the day-to-day workload of teachers and the classes they support (remembering the main reason a third of teachers leave the profession within the first five years is workload^[1]). Therefore, NEOST is concerned by these survey results which suggest budgetary pressures may end up being met by reducing this important resource, leading to increased teacher workload and a subsequent impact on retention and pupil attainment.   

A reduction in Estate and IT budgets would also be considered by 19 per cent of our stakeholders with a further 11 per cent considering a reduction in enrichment activities. NEOST is concerned that schools may face higher costs in the longer term as a result of the need to make short-term savings.

Solutions to a funding shortfall will generally be of concern, and NEOST is always keen to avoid any negative impact on student outcomes. NEOST is also concerned to remind the STRB that the use of any available reserves would only ever be a short-term fix and is not a sustainable way of funding consolidated and on-going pay awards, so our stakeholders warn against any reliance on reserves to fund salaries. Any reduction in overall staffing, student resources or the student “offer” (inside and outside of school hours) is also a concern. In terms of quick fix cost saving measures, our stakeholders tell us anecdotally that there is little to no “low hanging fruit” left in the school system. 

Our stakeholders highlighted primary school and smaller schools are most likely to have the biggest difficulty in managing their budgets next year (see 11 Chart below). However, due to the current profile of ATs representing more secondary schools than LAs, it is important to note that 30 per cent of ATs responses indicated that their secondary schools are most likely to face the biggest challenges.

Which, if any types of schools are experiencing the greatest difficulty?

[1] Department for Education (2018), School workforce in England: November 2017 

This year, as directed by the STRB remit we asked about targeted remuneration to address subject-specific teacher shortages and you can see from Chart 12 below, that 50 per cent of responses, ‘affordability notwithstanding’, agreed with this concept in principle, presenting a rather divided response overall. Breaking that response down further, we see that 58 per cent of ATs and 38 per cent of LAs supported the principle of targeted pay for subject specific teacher shortages, therefore slightly more support for this principle from ATs, which is interesting. This could be due to the fact that they are more familiar with the option of operating with more freedoms or it may be that the flexibilities already contained in the STPCD are less commonly utilised (as ATs do not have to follow the STPCD). An important point to note is that the question asked about support of the principle not the practical implementation of any national policy and any estimated additional funding required.

Affordability notwithstanding, does your organisation agree with the principle of having additional targeted remuneration to address subject-specific teacher shortages?

The majority (66 per cent) of our stakeholders already use some or all of the pay flexibilities available with the STPCD, although 14 per cent indicated that they did not use any of the existing flexibilities available to them within the STPCD, as seen in Chart 13 below.

Do your schools use existing STPCD pay flexibilities to target subject-specific teacher shortages?

The two most commonly used flexibilities across the school system were applying a recruitment and retention allowance and/or Teacher and Learning Responsibilities allowance. (Chart 14 below).

Which flexibilities do your schools use?

Where responses indicated they did not use any or all of the existing pay flexibilities, roughly a third (46) of all 150 responses gave affordability challenges as the main reason. NEOST asks that any observations reflected back to Government in the 34^th STRB report on targeted pay for subject-specific teacher shortages, include the critical point of ensuring all schools are adequately funded, to enable them to implement any proposed national strategy/framework that we would suggest also needs to be flexible to best meet local needs now and into the future. Chart 15 below.

Why do your schools not use the existing flexibilities?

When asked how the 2024 pay award should be applied 83 per cent responded “equally”. This may, in part, be driven by affordability challenges, as a significant number of schools indicate that is the reason, they do not currently use any or all of the pay flexibilities. However, it is also the case that previous responses have also indicated they would support equal increases across the ranges, based on a combination of teachers’ views on the perceived unfairness of any targeted pay awards and the potential negative impact on morale if, what is often seen as a cost-of-living award, is targeted in some way. As numerous studies have shown, pay is often seen as a hygiene factor and not a long-term motivator of performance. See Chart 16 below.

Should the 2024 pay award be applied to all ranges equally i.e. a uniformed percentage uplift - chose 1 option only

Our stakeholders have for many years asked for specific employer led changes to the STPCD and this continues to be the case as shown in Chart 17 below. In particular allowing teachers to voluntarily move back to the MPR from the UPR, and to review the number of years that salary protection applies. These are all changes that should be prioritised for the 2025 STRB remit from an employer’s perspective.

The Workload Reduction task force initial recommendations approved by the Schools Minister and the teacher union General Secretaries, include a formal commitment to consult with statutory consultees on Performance Related Pay (PRP) in time for the 2024/25 academic year. With 40 per cent of our stakeholders not indicating they wish to prioritise a review of PRP at this time, NEOST would ask that a meaningful statutory consultation process is commenced as soon as possible, and transition arrangements are considered if this system-wide change is made to the STPCD 2024, as employers will need adequate time to plan, cost, consult and implement any proposed new arrangements.

NEOST therefore invites and encourages the DfE to enter into early discussions with us, in order to inform the prioritisation of the above reviews and to be actively involved in early discussions involving careful consideration to the phasing and timing of any agreed reviews. NEOST accepts that movement from UPR to MPR and pay safeguarding changes would be controversial with teaching trade unions, but our stakeholders continue to be very clear that a significant number of teachers request to move from UPR to MPR for numerous reasons including as part of their retirement plan or for personal life choices and wellbeing, and if employers were able to agree this change, we suggest it could have a positive impact on retention levels. Currently even if employers wanted to agree the teacher’s request, they are legally unable to under the current STPCD regulations.

NEOST encourages the STRB to remind Government of its unique timetable pressures in relation to term time, and ATs financial reporting cycles. NEOST would welcome publication of the STRB’s 34th Report as early as possible allowing schools to consult, plan and implement any pay awards by the STPCD within term time, and meeting the implementation date of 1^st September (removing the requirement to backdate any such pay award).

• Appendix A - Local authority employer results
• Appendix B – Academy Trust results
• Appendix C - Combined LA employers (LGA) and Academy Employers (Employer Link) results