Last week, the NFER published its latest research report, The School Support Staff Workforce in England Annual Report 2026, to relatively little sector fanfare. Similarly, DfE’s report, The role and experience of support staff in schools, published the week before, received little in-depth comment when compared with similar research into the teaching workforce.

This may be partly because of the limited nature of the findings of each report. The DfE report has a school participation rate of 34% and only 32 school leaders agreed to be interviewed. The NFER report begins, “Support staff make up more than half of the school workforce in England, yet compared to teachers relatively little research has been done into the labour force dynamics of this diverse group.” Further, neither report features data on support staff in central Trust roles, because this has not been collected.

This lack of research implies what a lot of support staff already know from our own lived experience: we are integral to the running of schools and yet are not deemed worthy of study in our own right. Per the NFER: “Despite making up more than half of the school workforce, policymaking rarely focuses on support staff or the role they play, particularly compared to the attention placed on teachers.” The DfE report contains stark data: only 9% of school support staff feel valued by policymakers.

The main thrust of the NFER report – and indeed the point mainly picked up by the wider sector – is that support staff exit rates are rising, and school leaders are finding it increasingly difficult to replace them. Given that the most common reason given for considering leaving is that support staff do not feel valued – and that this is backed up by the fact that “average support staff pay is comfortably in the bottom half of the wider labour market in England” (the NFER) – this recruitment crisis should not surprise us.

The value gap between teachers and support staff manifests in various ways.

Take TAs as an example. They are often contracted for school hours only, term time only (with FTE pay pro-rated accordingly). They may be in the classroom most of the day, often required to help supervise break/lunch, sometimes required to support after-school club or extracurriculars, in a sometimes physically demanding role (additional needs support, constant moving between classrooms) – and are not paid, or given the appropriate resources, to spend extra time checking emails, attending meetings, or undertaking training.

Support staff contracts usually state specific hours of work and while senior administrative or central trust staff may be contracted 52 weeks a year, term time only or term time plus a certain number of weeks remains common in schools (NB: INSET is not counted as term time). Teachers are expected to complete work outside their directed hours and are paid accordingly; support staff are not. And yet often, where teachers and support staff work closely together, the expectation is that they share a similar level of commitment. The DfE report tells us that “a discrepancy exists between contracted and reported working hours for several staff groups […] the findings show that support staff who are dissatisfied with their job are significantly more likely to receive no compensation for their extra hours.” The DfE report also tells us, unsurprisingly, that job satisfaction is lowest amongst TAs and learning support staff at just 58%.

80% of support staff report carrying out tasks outside their job description at least some of the time, with 25% of support staff in mainstream schools reporting that they undertake such tasks most of the time. School leaders say that such support staff flexibility is “essential for schools to function effectively and keep pupils safe” (DfE). Meanwhile, 24% of support staff feel that they cannot manage their workload. The NFER reports that support staff work fewer hours each week than similar workers and are more likely to express a desire to work more hours; however, the report surmises that “the overall impression is that support staff are not typically feeling overworked, relative to other workers.” I would dispute this inference: is it not more likely that support staff wish to work more hours precisely because they cannot fit what is expected of them into the hours for which they are (poorly) paid?

It is generally expected that school support staff positions are attractive to parents of young children due to school hours/term time-only contracts. But non-student-facing administrative staff often work full-time office hours in term time, meaning that in actuality better paid jobs offering hybrid working in other sectors may be more attractive. Not only this, but as stated earlier, Trust central roles or the more senior school-based support staff roles are often advertised at 52 weeks per year. While many school support staff report working flexibly, this is most often referring to part-time work – which term time only is. “Almost all school support staff cannot work from home, but around 30 per cent of similar workers now do so. Whilst many support staff will be attracted to the job because of flexibilities around term-time working, the increased prevalence of home working in alternative jobs may be making recruitment and retention harder” (the NFER).

Although the DfE report notes that informal flexible working is common (time off when needed, flexed hours), formal flexible working is rarer. I have heard school and Trust leaders alike say that because teachers cannot work flexibly (by which they generally mean “from home”) it would be unfair to allow office-based support staff to do so. This is prioritising equality of outcome over equity of process and can only make recruitment and retention of support staff more difficult. “25% of staff considering departure report poor mental and/or physical health as a contributing factor [...] 18% cite inability to amend their working pattern, indicating that inflexibility in working arrangements is pushing some staff towards leaving the sector” (DfE).

There is also a distinct lack of career progression or development for support staff. For student-facing support staff in particular – but not exclusively – the ultimate goal is often presumed by teachers or line managers to be a career in teaching, with student-facing support merely a stepping stone to a more high-value profession. This is not borne out by the data: among TAs, 34% report being interested in teacher training – still a minority. Among support staff as a whole, 72% are not interested in teaching as a career (DfE).

Where does this leave career progression opportunities? 70% of support staff have not received a promotion; 20% have been promoted to a higher level within the same role; and 10% have been promoted to a different role. Only 20% of support staff believe there are opportunities for career progression within their school or trust (DfE). School leaders cite school structure and/or size as a reason why they cannot offer career progression opportunities; additionally, low pay and limited budgets are a serious constraint: “without adequate compensation, support staff may find higher level roles, and the increased responsibility and workload they tend to carry, less attractive” (DfE). Compounding this is the fact that, linked to changes in the national living wage, pay growth is stronger at the lower end of support staff wages, leaving less money available to reward more experienced staff. Just under 40% of support staff consider that their pay is unfair compared to others in their organisation and 72% are dissatisfied with their salary (DfE).

While central trust staff are not included in any of the data, it is not unlikely that similar issues exist there. Although many trusts employ very senior support staff in HR, finance, or operations roles, they will still find that progression opportunities are limited, and it’s possible that where they work closely alongside teachers (e.g. in teaching school hubs, research schools, or central CPD provision) they may find that they are working similar hours at a similar level of responsibility but on a different – lower – contractual wage scale. There may be more flexible working opportunities in central teams, but it is just as likely that they will find themselves working over their hours with no compensation at this level.

Why do support staff stay? Those with a working pattern compatible with caring for young children will likely stick it out at least until their children are older. Others enjoy working with young people and/or in a school. And largely, support staff are loyal: 58% have worked in their role for 5 years or more, and 39% for 10 years or more (DfE). But we are increasingly seeing that goodwill can only stretch so far: “[a]round one in five support staff left the school system between 2023/24 and 2024/25. This rate has been trending upwards for the last three years. Support staff exit rates have now reached the highest level since the data began in 2011/12” (the NFER).

So how do we solve a problem like support staff? The simplistic – but probably accurate – answer I give to policymakers is: pay us a wage that accurately reflects not just the work that we do, but the value we add. Well-trained and experienced TAs have a positive impact on teacher workload (an issue that, in contrast to support staff, is talked about frequently). Skilled finance and administrative staff make the school run smoothly. The flexibility we show is integral to keeping children safe. School and Trust leaders: add your voices to calls to adequately fund schools to address support staff pay.

Leaders can promote flexible working for those who do not have to be in the classroom all day, demonstrating that they trust us to work effectively from home (as an example). Listen to our suggestions and opinions – we know the organisation as well as teachers do. Allow us to undertake training that enriches us. Show us in word and deed that we are valued just as much as the teachers we outnumber.

Susi is Operations Manager at the Julian Teaching School Hub. She has worked in her support staff role for 8.5 years.