The Department for Education published its response to the latest call for insights and evidence on National Professional Qualifications on 22 September 2026. The review applies to England. The response records support for the evidence informed design of current NPQs, alongside calls for programmes to reflect leadership practice, institutional context and operational responsibility more closely.
The response does not itself amend any NPQ framework, create a new legal duty or announce an implementation date for revised frameworks. The DfE is considering the submissions with the Education Endowment Foundation and external experts. A fuller account of how the feedback has been used is expected towards the end of the review.
What respondents reported
The second and final call ran from 10 December 2025 to 20 February 2026. It invited insights and opinions on the full NPQ suite, alongside research evidence relevant to seven frameworks: Leading Teacher Development, Leading Teaching, Leading Behaviour and Culture, Leading Literacy, Leading Primary Mathematics, Early Years Leadership and SENCO.
DfE received 128 survey submissions. Separately, respondents supplied 75 unique research sources, of which 55 studies were retained after initial screening.
The response summarises submissions to this survey, rather than all engagement undertaken through the review. Its findings should therefore be read as an account of respondents’ experiences and views, not as a representative verdict on every programme or provider.
Respondents valued the common structure, shared professional language and research base. Some also reported repetition between qualifications, insufficient differentiation by role and gaps in people leadership, organisational culture, accountability and the use of evidence in context. Some feedback described the programmes as too school-centred. Respondents called for greater relevance to trust-wide operational leaders, further education and skills settings, and private, voluntary and independent early-years providers.
The detail varies by qualification. Headship feedback called for more practical coverage of finance, budgets, employment issues, difficult conversations, safeguarding decisions and risk. SENCO feedback welcomed the role’s strategic status while seeking stronger practical coverage of SEND law, Education, Health and Care Plan processes, work with parents and local authorities, and managing conflict. Early-years feedback highlighted staffing, safeguarding, care and workforce differences. Some respondents questioned the literacy framework’s relevance to secondary leadership and called for greater emphasis on disciplinary literacy.
Respondents also identified delivery challenges. They valued face-to-face discussion, blended learning, coaching and opportunities to apply theory, while reporting barriers involving workload, pacing, variable provision and contextual relevance. Assessment feedback included concern that theoretical knowledge receives more attention than applied leadership capability.
These are themes from consultation feedback. They do not establish that every programme has the same weaknesses or that every suggested change will be adopted.
What has not changed
Leaders should resist treating the response as a new specification. Existing NPQ frameworks and current programme requirements remain the reference point unless and until DfE publishes replacements or formal amendments. Providers continue to use the published frameworks to design their courses.
Nor does the review displace the legal and delegated responsibilities of schools, trusts and their leaders. Responsibility for safeguarding, equality, employment and finance depends on the applicable legislation, statutory guidance, contractual requirements and governance arrangements. Some duties sit with a trust, governing body or employer; particular functions may be delegated to executive leaders or headteachers. An NPQ framework does not determine that allocation of responsibility.
The distinction also matters for SENCOs. Their statutory functions extend beyond the content of a qualification. However, the SENCO NPQ is itself the mandatory qualification for relevant appointments, subject to exemptions and transitional arrangements. Where the requirement applies, the normal completion window is three years from taking up the post. The review does not suspend that requirement.
When commissioning development, it would be premature to remove current content because a future framework may look different. Equally, an organisation should address a verified capability gap where leaders are already making consequential decisions.
A practical response for trusts and schools
The immediate task is to examine how well existing development prepares people for their responsibilities. Trust boards and governing bodies can ask leaders to explain how professional development connects to organisational risk, succession planning and school improvement. This is a practical recommendation, rather than a new duty created by the review.
Executive and professional development leads can take five useful steps.
-
- Map roles against real decisions. Compare each participant’s NPQ with the decisions they actually face. A prospective head may benefit from supervised experience of budget planning, safeguarding escalation or an employment process. A SENCO may need structured development on EHCP evidence and working with the local authority. Identify the participant’s responsibilities and limits of authority before choosing an activity.
- Protect application time. Agree how the participant will test learning in practice, who will supervise it and what evidence will be reviewed. Build this into workload planning where possible. This recommendation does not imply a new statutory entitlement arising from the publication.
- Choose context deliberately. Ask providers how examples and discussions will reflect the participant’s institution and role. Explore how provision accommodates an FE college, special school, multi-academy trust or nursery setting. Check accessibility, pacing, coaching arrangements and support for neurodivergent adult learners.
- Capture useful feedback. Keep concise accounts of duplicated content, missing knowledge and barriers to applying learning. Ground feedback in specific decisions or development activities where possible.
- Plan for transition without guessing. Give one senior owner responsibility for monitoring the review and assessing revised frameworks when published. Record which cohorts, contracts, funding arrangements and internal programmes could be affected. Avoid promising a proposed feature, funding route or assessment model before DfE confirms it.
For example, a trust supporting an aspiring head could arrange observation of a finance committee, subject to confidentiality requirements, and a supervised fictional scenario involving a serious safeguarding allegation. These activities can help identify development needs and practise decision-making. Participation does not confer authority to manage a live case; the individual must follow the trust’s procedures and obtain appropriate specialist advice.
Avoiding common mistakes
The first pitfall is to confuse consultation feedback with government policy. The second is to use an NPQ as a complete job description. The third is to fund participation without planning opportunities to apply the learning.
Schools and trusts can use this publication to examine the support around each participant: the responsibilities they hold, the experience they need, the time available and the person who will help them evaluate their decisions. Continue current programmes on their published terms, address verified development needs and assess formal changes when DfE publishes them.
