Education in England

School type	Primary
Secondary
Church of England		63.5%		39.6%
Roman Catholic		76.3%		64.7%
Non-religious		47.3%		28.8%

A 2010 analysis by The Guardian claimed that state faith schools were not taking a proportional share of the poorest pupils in their local areas, using free school meal claims as a proxy for socioeconomic status. The authors suggested that selection by religion led to over-representation of children from more well-off families.^[73]
A National Union of Teachers survey in 2017 raised concerns that young teachers may be leaving the profession due to long working hours, high stress levels, and concerns about the effect on their mental wellbeing.^[74][75] A 2018 poll by the National Education Union suggested that four out of five teachers had considered leaving during the previous year.^[76]
The Institute for Fiscal Studies claimed in 2017 that government plans for school spending would cause a "real-terms cut of 2.8% in per-pupil funding between 2016 and 2022".^[77]
Just under a quarter of teachers who qualified since 2011 had left the profession by 2016.^[78]
National Audit Office figures published in 2017 showed that more teachers left before retirement in 2016 than on 2011 and that, although overall teacher numbers in English state schools had increased by 15,500 over that period, the number of teachers in secondary schools had dropped by 10,800.^[79]
The co-founder of the "Fair Funding for All Schools" campaign said at a rally in 2017 that she was aware of schools that were asking parents for money because funding was falling short of what they need.^[80]
The National Association of Head Teachers said in 2017 that it would be writing to all MPs to draw attention to problems faced by English state schools due to funding shortages and to warn that standards were at risk, after a claimed £2.8 billion reduction in frontline budgets since 2015.^[81]
Social Market Foundation's commission on inequality in education found in 2017 that geographical differences, which had not been important 50 years previously, were now a major factor (alongside wealth and ethnic background) in explaining student outcomes. The commission also found that schools in deprived areas employed less experienced staff and had fewer specialist teachers. They recommended that before becoming head teachers, teachers should spend some time in leadership positions in schools in deprived areas and that the government should consider subsided housing to attract teachers to worse-off areas^[82] Underperforming by disadvantaged pupils is underestimated because some disadvantaged pupils are off-rolled, made to leave school before taking GCSE's so their bad results will not affect the school's position in league tables.^[83]
In 2018 Professor Robert Plomin of Kings College London^[84] led a study of 4,000 white British pupils across the UK. The study measured each pupil's genotype, family socioeconomic status, general intelligence (measured by an IQ-style test), prior achievement (11+ or Sats results) and GCSE results. The researchers found a 7% difference in the results between private schools and the worst performing state secondary schools, but when all independent variables are included in the analysis this difference drops to less than 1%. The authors concluded that pupils’ genes accounted for 8–9 per cent of the difference in GCSE results, more than any of the other factors they measured. However, the survey was criticised by other academics. Danny Dorling noted that it implied that areas of the country without selective and private schools were genetically predisposed to be less able than areas with such schools. The genetic scoring system used by the study was also controversial, with scientists being divided on whether it was a true index of academic potential and it not being known what factors that may contribute to higher achievement are represented by the genes. The statistical analysis was also criticised, with Ewan Birney saying that the claims needed to be tested more robustly. ^[84]
In 2018, the Education Policy Institute (EPI) said that England's schools faced a shortage of teachers that would lead to larger class sizes and more subjects being taught by staff without relevant degrees. The EPI called for "targeted salary supplements" for teachers in shortage subjects. This was opposed by head teachers' union ASCL as it would lead to different pay levels for staff with similar workloads.^[85][86]
Funding
Funding for English schools will change to a national formula in 2018, with some schools likely to gain from the new formula and others likely to lose.^[87] Secretary of State for Education, Justine Greening has said the change means funding will depend less on the postcode lottery. The National Audit Office (NAO) has stated that total funding will be reduced by 8%.^[88][89] According to councils, funding cuts might prevent many local authorities meeting legal obligations to schools in their areas such as checking staff for criminal records and ensuring buildings are asbestos free.^[90] The Institute for Fiscal Studies maintains real spending on schooling per pupil has dropped by 8% since 2010.^[91] The UK Statistics Authority maintains the UK government uses misleading statistics and overestimates spending on education.^[92]
The Public Accounts Committee, a cross-party parliamentary committee, has criticised the government's free school programme as poor value for money for spending excessively on unsuitable sites and building schools where none are needed. It has also said that other schools are not getting repairs done and need £7bn to be brought back to a satisfactory condition: "While the department is spending significant funds in creating 500 more free schools, even in areas with no shortage of places, existing schools struggle to live within their budgets and carry out routine maintenance".^[93]
The government is planning to provide extra funding to expand grammar schools, raising concerns from the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, Geoff Barton, who said: "We are disappointed that the government has decided to spend scarce funding on expanding grammar schools. While there are many good selective schools, just as there are many good non-selective schools, the evidence is clear that expanding the number of selective places is likely to be damaging to social mobility."^[94]
Schools in a large majority of English constituencies will have less funding in 2020 than they had in 2015. Schools in deprived areas will suffer financial pressure. Birmingham is the city losing most, 99% of schools there have a funding shortfall and 89% will experience more real-terms cuts in April. Schools must make further cuts. 83% of schools will have less money in real terms per pupil in 2020 than in 2015, and children in 146 of 149 local authorities will have less. Luke Sibieta of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said, “This analysis shows that most schools will have seen real-terms cuts in school funding per pupil between 2015 and 2020 once you account for confirmed school funding allocations and the likely costs faced by schools. “Further funding increases are already planned between 2020 and 2022, which should near enough reverse the picture of real-terms cuts over the last decade. However, this would still leave spending per pupil about the same level in 2022 as it was 13 years earlier in 2009. This represents a substantial squeeze on school resources as compared with recent history.” Angela Rayner MP disputed if teachers and parents could trust the prime minister's promises about funding she said, “Boris Johnson’s Conservatives will only ever look after the privileged few – that is why pupils and schools in disadvantaged areas have quite deliberately been denied the extra funding they need, entrenching not tackling inequality.”^[95]