In 2021 the DfE, in collaboration with the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), released the new and reformed suite of NPQs. Leaving aside the NPQ in Executive Leadership (only delivered in national cohorts), what had previously been three qualifications (NPQ in Middle Leadership, NPQ in Senior Leadership, NPQ in Headship) became first five, then seven, then eight, and now nine separate qualifications with courses being added in Leading Teaching, Leading Teacher Development, Leading Behaviour and Culture, Leading Literacy, Early Years Leadership, Leading Primary Maths and, most recently, the NPQ for SENCOs.

Each qualification had an evidence-informed framework and was structured into “Learn that” and “Learn how to” statements. The EEF reviewed the frameworks to ensure the research underpinning them was robust and had been interpreted accurately.

Of course, evidence is not static and insights evolve. The DfE is now conducting a review of the frameworks and the qualifications to ensure that the underlying evidence remains current and robust, and that the courses remain underpinned by best practice to meet the professional development needs of the workforce.

A call was launched in December 2025 for insights and opinions on the current full suite of NPQs, and the DfE has recently released its response, which you can read in full here.

At the JTSH, we have delivered the new and reformed NPQs since 2021, via three Lead Providers, to in excess of 450 participants. So we read this response with interest: would our own perceptions of the NPQs be challenged or confirmed by the response?

Of course, it’s a bit of both. In this blog, we’ve picked out some of the aspects of the response that particularly resonated with us.

NPQ target audience insights

The response notes that “there can be a tendency for individuals to self-select NPQs that they think will enhance their career progression. Some experienced leaders complete NPQs as a credential rather than for meaningful professional development as intended.”

This is not a surprise: of course, a qualification that takes a year or more to complete will be chosen with an eye on career progression – it’s naïve to think otherwise. It doesn’t mean that “meaningful professional development” doesn’t happen at the same time.

More interestingly – and reflecting our own perception – the NPQLL stands out as “not [being] consistently clear who the NPQ is intended for – whether it is primarily a leadership qualification for literacy leads or a programme to strengthen literacy practice more broadly among teachers.”

Here at the JTSH we have tried to mitigate this uncertainty but since reductions in funding for NPQs, and the removal of the additional bursary for cover costs, schools have had to choose very carefully who to put forward for an NPQ. Although we have wanted to run NPQLL – and other specialist - cohorts in the last two years, we simply haven’t had enough applications to make it viable.

NPQ content insights

In possibly the least surprising finding, the response notes that “some feedback suggested that there is currently too much overlap and repetition across NPQs.” This is undoubtedly the case: in order to ensure that all participants receive a thorough grounding in the evidence underpinning the NPQs and the importance of effective implementation, each qualification includes this as standard. And it is valuable:

Feedback consistently recognised that the structured, research-led nature of the frameworks creates coherence across the NPQ suite and supports a shared professional language, helping participants to understand how different NPQs relate to one another. Respondents consistently welcomed the clarity provided by the “learn that” and “learn how to” statement structure.

It will be interesting to see how the Department resolves this issue of repetition in the updated frameworks.

NPQ delivery insights

We were pleased to see it confirmed that the current delivery model largely suits the needs of schools with blended delivery seen to improve accessibility and flexibility for busy teachers and leaders. In-person sessions are praised for facilitating "high-quality discussions and the development of professional learning communities, many of which continue beyond the programme."

Feedback emphasised the importance of NPQs being designed and delivered in a way that is inclusive of neuro-diverse adult learners. Feedback also emphasised concerns that inflexible programmes can disproportionately impact teachers and leaders with childcare responsibilities, who are more likely to be women.

We're happy to see this point being picked up. We take accessibility extremely seriously and work hard to make our commitment to DEIB visible in everything we do. You can read more about this here and here (not to mention here!).

NPQ impact insights

We found the feedback here much to be expected: while “[o]ne of the most cited benefits is the way NPQs have created a common national language for evidence, implementation and leadership, supporting a more coherent professional dialogue within and between schools and trusts”, we know that this alone does not equate to measurable impact. One of the Trusts that works with us is launching a long-term evaluation of impact for their newest cohort of NPQ participants, and we look forward to seeing the interim and final results.

Some feedback has suggested NPQs help participants to understand effective practice, but they are constrained by workload, lack of authority, or an unsupportive school or system conditions. Impact is seen as uneven and highly dependent on context.

As with all CPD, the learning is only the start: having the opportunity to put the learning into practice while it is fresh is vital to retaining the knowledge and the impetus for change. Per the EEF, professional development “is more likely to succeed when there is alignment between the aims of the programme and the priorities of the school or setting as well as support from leadership.”

Other NPQ insights

Funding, access and equity – funding was repeatedly raised by respondents. Some responses said that when NPQs were fully funded, participation increased, but many schools struggled to release staff time. Reduced funded places, late funding announcements and uncertainty about eligibility were seen as undermining access, equity and system wide impact. Several respondents argued that current eligibility rules exclude some schools working in challenging contexts and risk deepening regional and sector inequalities.

I think we can leave it there.