This blog follows a Chartered College of Teaching Fellows’ roundtable co-hosted with colleagues from the Department for Education as part of the current National Professional Qualification (NPQ) review happening from January 2025 to July 2026. The general themes and discussion points from the 20 Fellows who attended and represented the teaching profession have been summarised in this blog. 

NPQs have long been at the core of teaching and leadership development within the English education system. While their current iteration offers strong pedagogical content and is generally well-regarded, there are some key areas for refinement. Participants at the roundtable explored how NPQs help professionals perform their roles effectively, where they can be improved, and what future reforms could enhance their impact. 

Current strengths of NPQs 

Participants in the roundtable noted a number of strengths of the current NPQs. They provide a solid foundation of evidence-based practices and classroom pedagogy, ensuring that participants receive access to high-quality research and training. Their credibility remains high and they are recognised across the profession as a respected qualification. 

When delivered effectively, NPQs create a collaborative environment that fosters peer-to-peer challenge, shared language, and engagement with evidence-based practices. Exposure to cognitive science and wider educational research enables participants to bring best practices into their roles and improve the system for our young people. Additionally, the joy of learning with colleagues from different schools strengthens professional networks and broadens perspectives. 

One of the most welcome changes to the current iteration has been the removal of the ‘project’ element, allowing participants to focus more on theoretical knowledge without the pressure of additional assessments and workload impact. However, this adjustment has inadvertently left some feeling that the application of learning is missing (see further below).

Areas for improvement 

While attendees felt the NPQ was a respected qualification, all supported the need for a review as they felt that some areas could be improved upon. These areas for improvement are summarised below:

• Leadership development: NPQs need a stronger focus on leadership development in a broader range of areas. A greater emphasis on leadership theory, people management, financial oversight and HR considerations  could help participants become well-rounded leaders. 
• Assessment consistency: One of the biggest concerns expressed was the lack of consistency in assessment rigour. With different providers seemingly using different marking approaches, expectations vary significantly, leading to disparities in outcomes. Attendees suggested that a centralised approach and more consistency to assessment could improve the quality and fairness of NPQs across the board and protect the credibility of the qualification moving forward.
• Implementation: While NPQs equip educators with theoretical knowledge, their support for practical implementation can sometimes falls short. Without hands-on opportunities to apply learning, the true impact can remain limited.
• Phase specificity: Participants felt much of the NPQ content is too secondary-focused, forcing primary and alternative school colleagues (PRU/SEND provision) to adapt the framework to suit their context. A phased approach – where some content remains universal, and other sections are tailored to specific phases – could offer a more personalised learning experience. This contextualised approach could be more impactful in schools. 
• Framework repetition and expectation: Participants suggested that the current  repetition within NPQ frameworks detracts from time that could be spent exploring leadership competencies in greater depth and ensuring each qualification is more challenging, in line with the level of responsibility that they support. One colleague shared that they felt the difference between what they delivered on NPQML (NPQ for Middle Leadership) was very much the same as what they had been expected to do for their NPQEL (NPQ for Executive Leadership). 
• Accessibility and funding disparities: Across the country, disparities in NPQ uptake, access, availability and funding create isolated pockets where schools struggle to participate effectively, making NPQs inaccessible for many. The growth in specialisms and reduced financial support have made viable cohorts harder to run for delivery providers too, with some multi-academy trusts (MATs) needing to subsidise delivery costs.
• Coaching: It was suggested that personalised coaching would allow participants to better connect their learning to real-world application, strengthening leadership development and enhancing school-wide impact. 
• Flexibility in delivery method: Certain NPQ delivery methods have proven to be beneficial. A mixed approach of online and in-person sessions, local delivery in MATs, and potentially less asynchronous content would encourage collaboration, accessibility, and deeper engagement and interaction from participants. There was also discussion around the exploration of modular units for NPQs, which would allow more tailored learning experiences.

Key asks for the future

For NPQs to reach their full potential colleagues called for: 

1. continued funding to maintain credibility and accessibility across all schools
2. greater emphasis on practical application to enhance leadership impact
3. centralised assessment expectations to ensure consistency. 

Final thoughts

NPQs remain an essential part of leadership development in education. With an increased focus on practical leadership skills, improved assessment consistency, and stronger accessibility, they can have an even greater impact. By recognising the need for adaptability and continuous evaluation, NPQs can equip education professionals with the knowledge and experience needed to lead effectively in evolving school environments.