Staff developments
16th October 2025 by Timo Hannay [link]
As regular readers will know, we pay close attention to the amounts invested by schools in staff development (see our most recent previous analyses last October and June). It's time for a update, which we are once again delighted to provide in collaboration with the Teacher Development Trust (TDT). Expenditure figures come from mainstream state school financial returns to the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA).
Figure 1 shows average per-teacher spending on staff development at mainstream state schools. The lines show values for all schools (black), primary schools (red) and secondary schools (blue). (Show all lines again.) Spending at both primary and secondary schools has fallen since 2018, even in nominal terms. Increases since 2022 have tracked below the general inflation rate. In other words, expenditure has continued to fall in real terms.
(Click on the figure legend to turn individual lines on or off. Hover over the graph to see corresponding values.)
Figure 1: Staff development and training spend per teacher at mainstream state schools
Figure 2 shows 2024 expenditure breakdowns by school location and type for both primary schools (red columns) and secondary schools (blue).
Looking at regions first, primary schools in the West Midlands spent most (£724), while those in London spent least (£507). For secondary schools, London was the highest-spending region (£582), while Yorkshire and the Humber was lowest-spending (£340). London was the only region in which secondary schools outspent primary schools.
Schools with higher proportions of disadvantaged pupills tended to spend more, as did those with lower Ofsted ratings (though the latter trend was weaker). Primary schools with high proportions of ethnic-minority pupils spent less, but this trend was reversed for secondary schools. The same was true for EAL pupils and for urban schools.
In terms of school size, smaller schools tended to outspend larger schools, at least on this per-teacher basis, and single-academy trusts tended to spend more than multi-academy trusts (MATs), especially larger MATs – though they all spent more than LA-maintained schools. Among academies, free schools spent the most. Finally, looking at faith schools, Catholic schools spent the most in primary but the least in secondary.
(Use the menu below to explore different school groups. Hover over the columns to see corresponding values.)
Figure 2: Staff development and training spend by school type (2024)
In summary, we observe a continued decline in overall reported spend, at least in real terms. More challenged schools tend to spend more, though they typically have more grant income and less experienced teachers too (see our previous analysis of teacher age bands here). In some cases, such as small schools and SATs, higher relative expenditure might reflect less efficient provision of CPD, so more money shouldn't necessarily be equated to better outcomes. But the overall level in education remains low compared to other industries (see our previous benchmarking) and, if anything, the trend continues to be downwards.
We welcome your feedback; please write to [email protected].
