Evaluation of INSET (in-service education and training) days in Wales: summary

In-service education and training (INSET) days form a core component of teachers’ statutory working hours and provide protected time for professional learning. In addition to the standard 5 days, in 2019 a sixth INSET day was introduced to provide additional time to support preparations for the new Curriculum for Wales (CfW).

The Welsh Government (WG) has commissioned Miller Research to undertake an evaluation of the current system. The research explores how INSET days are structured and timetabled, the content covered and processes through which sessions are planned, the extent to which INSET reflects national and school-level priorities, and how inclusive provision is across staff groups. It also considers perceptions of its effectiveness and factors that facilitate or act as barriers to its use.

A mixed-methods approach was adopted. Qualitative interviews and focus groups were conducted with senior leaders, teachers, local authority representatives, national stakeholders and education workforce unions. An online survey of education practitioners (n=561) provided broader insight across roles, phases and settings.

The use and planning of INSET days

The survey responses indicate that most settings use a combination of full INSET days and twilight sessions. A smaller proportion delivered all of their entitlement as full days only, and very few relied exclusively on twilight sessions alone.

Full days were described as supporting intensive training, school-wide coherence and uninterrupted planning while twilight sessions offer flexibility and are used to distribute professional learning across the year to maximise productive time and to accommodate part-time staff. Some challenges associated with twilight include reduced value due to fatigue and variable levels of attendance.

In the 2025 to 2026 academic year, INSET content was predominantly planned to focus on curriculum design and Areas of Learning Experience (AoLE) (88%), safeguarding (76%), additional learning needs and IDP inclusion (70%) and cluster collaboration (67%).

The sixth INSET day was used for similar content as the five days. In many schools it was described as having a stronger emphasis on curriculum reform and development, ALN-related activity, and completion of perceived mandatory updates.

While the WG does not mandate specific INSET content, senior leaders described activity related to safeguarding, health and safety, and behaviour and medical training as “mandatory” due to wider statutory duties, local authority expectations or professional standards. Training that is perceived as mandatory was consistently reported as occupying a substantial proportion of INSET time.

INSET planning is flexible and largely determined at school level. Decisions about content were commonly shaped by School Development Plans (SDPs), national reform priorities and mandatory training, with special schools reporting that additional behaviour, medical and manual handling training requirements play a further role. Staff feedback, self-evaluation and professional review discussions are also used to identify strengths and gaps to be addressed.

While schools that participated in fieldwork did not reference the National Approach to Professional Learning (NAPL) directly, planning processes described by leaders did reflect some of its principles, including use of internal expertise, collaborative enquiry and alignment with identified school needs.

Alignment with national priorities and policy goals

Evidence across settings shows that many schools take WG priorities into account when planning INSET days. Alignment was most commonly achieved through integration within SDPs rather than through explicit standalone sessions.

Curriculum for Wales is central to INSET planning with a majority suggesting it is an important priority. Senior leaders reported dedicating substantial time to curriculum design, pedagogy, progression and qualification reform while those in secondary schools highlighted work linked to new GCSE specifications.

ALN reforms were reported to influence INSET planning, especially in special schools, with the time being used to develop understanding of IDPs, assessment approaches, communication strategies and differentiation by learner needs.

Equity-related themes, including behaviour, wellbeing, attendance and trauma-informed practice, are incorporated into INSET provision in many schools. In some cases it involves input from external expert speakers, often during cluster days, to better recognise barriers faced by learners and adjust their practice accordingly.

However, leaders across settings, and particularly special schools, noted that the breadth of national policy expectations, combined with the volume of perceived mandatory training, limited the extent to which these priorities could be addressed in-depth within the available INSET time.

Support for Cymraeg 2050 through INSET varied between settings. Welsh-medium schools reported more structured use of days to strengthen language development and cultural identity, while English-medium schools report more limited coverage.

The sixth INSET day was described as increasing capacity to address national reform priorities, though in some secondary settings its use was constrained by externally scheduled WJEC qualification reform training. Some reported more flexible use of the sixth INSET day, including for cluster collaboration on CfW, and special school leaders described it as particularly important in maintaining time for curriculum and ALN work alongside higher volumes of required training.

Inclusion and access for all staff groups

All senior leaders reported aiming to include teaching assistants (TAs) in INSET, with many stating they have a strong commitment to ensuring that all staff are involved. Survey responses indicate high participation with 75 of 78 TAs reporting they attend.

There was variation in how far INSET content was tailored to TA roles as well as challenges in ensuring this can be achieved. Where sessions were perceived as teacher-focused or insufficiently relevant to their role or experience, reduced engagement amongst TAs was reported. The participation of TAs can also be affected where INSET time is not included within their contracts, or where childcare responsibilities make attendance more difficult.

There was also variation in the extent to which the development priorities of other individual practitioners informed INSET planning. In some schools, professional development review processes and staff feedback shaped content. In others, planning was driven primarily by SDP priorities, with individual development needs addressed outside INSET time.

Collaboration and cluster working

INSET is predominantly used for the purpose of internal collaboration within school settings, including for moderation, departmental planning and joint curriculum development and this was commonly described as an integral part of the provision.

Where cluster networks are established and coordinated, it is common for one day to be reserved specifically for collaboration activities with other schools. In these instances, senior leaders reported using INSET to support cross-school curriculum planning and alignment, pedagogy and assessment through shared learning.

Where cluster working is less developed, collaboration tends to be more limited and shaped by practical constraints such as capacity, leadership stability, and the ability to align priorities across schools. The activity is often targeted or episodic, focusing on specific priorities, staff groups, or coordination where feasible.

Some schools noted challenges in implementing cluster based-INSET which include difficulty in agreeing shared priorities for the day and timing constraints that make it hard to schedule joint sessions. Others reported issues such as limited knowledge of what other schools are doing well, difficulties releasing teachers to visit other schools, turnover of senior leaders, and administrative workload.

Use of the sixth INSET day for cluster collaboration was limited and mainly occurred where cluster networks were well established. In these cases, it supported joint curriculum planning and progression work across phases.

Governance and communication

Governors are often invited to attend relevant INSET sessions, particularly those linked to safeguarding or strategic priorities, though attendance was reported to be limited. Views on the effectiveness of communication with governors regarding INSET were mixed, with some leaders describing reporting processes as largely procedural. A small number also noted challenges in engaging governors in curriculum related discussions where up to date subject knowledge was required.

Communication beyond governing bodies also presents challenges. Schools reported pressures associated with communicating INSET arrangements to parents, particularly where the dates of INSET days changed after publication or at relatively short notice which can resultant childcare implications for parents.

Engagement with local authorities varied, with some senior leaders reporting limited direct involvement in INSET planning and others describing contact focused on timetabling or training perceived as mandatory. In contrast, local authority representatives described more regular communication with schools in relation to safeguarding, ALN reform and curriculum development, suggesting some misalignment between their perceptions of their role and schools’ experience of INSET planning.

Impact on practitioners and schools

INSET days were perceived to have a positive impact on practitioners. A clear majority perceive that INSET has had a positive impact on both their professional knowledge and development (88%) and on their classroom practice (87%).

Practitioners described INSET as providing structured time to engage with updated guidance, curriculum reform and new teaching approaches, helping them stay up to date with national policy developments and expectations. It was also reported to support reflection on practice and shared discussion across staff groups. Internal collaboration, including opportunities to plan, moderate and exchange approaches, was viewed as contributing to greater consistency in practice across the school.

These impacts were described as dependent on INSET days and sessions having clarity of purpose, relevance to practitioner roles, and quality of planning. Stronger impact was also associated with use of internal expertise and established cluster working. Where INSET was perceived as overly generic, compliance-focused or non-collaborative, practitioners reported more limited impact.

Survey findings also indicate wellbeing-related impacts for some practitioners. Some reported increased confidence and reduced stress where INSET provided clear guidance and practical support, while others valued whole-day sessions for reflection and discussion. A minority reported more pressure due to increases in workload.

The findings show that INSET activity can also contribute to school development by providing structured opportunities to ensure shared understanding of school priorities among staff and staff groups. They improve awareness and understanding of the SDP by helping staff to see how it translates to the classroom and ensure all staff receive consistent messages about inspection recommendations.

INSET was described as most effective in supporting school development where it was high quality, clearly linked to priorities and reinforced through follow-up activity. In these cases, it strengthened shared understanding and coherent implementation, reflecting principles associated with schools as learning organisations.

The sixth INSET day was not associated with distinct impacts but was widely described as strengthening schools’ capacity to realise the benefits associated with INSET by providing additional protected time for professional development.

Impact on learners and wider outcomes

INSET is perceived by leaders and practitioners to contribute positively to learner outcomes. Some schools reported observing impact through existing monitoring processes such as progress data, behaviour logs, attendance, observations of engagement and practitioner reflection. However, impacts were described as indirect and difficult to isolate from the influence of other relevant factors.

Impacts on learners are expected to occur following changes in practitioners' knowledge and practice. The findings show that there is evidence of improved quality of teaching, strengthened curriculum coherence, consistency across staff roles, and increased staff confidence all of which were considered important pathways through which INSET supports learners and can improve their outcomes.

The sixth INSET day was not linked to any additional impacts but was described as enabling schools to sustain this learner-focused professional learning.

Views on the need for the sixth INSET day

There was strong support for the continuation of the sixth INSET day. Survey evidence indicated that a clear majority believe that it enables better support for professional learning (71%) or say that they support its retention (83%) in future.

Leaders across settings described the sixth day as essential in managing perceived mandatory training requirements while preserving time for other priorities. Several interviewees referred to growing national expectations, notably in relation to Curriculum for Wales and qualification reform, suggesting that staff require protected time to interpret guidance and align approaches across school phases.

Respondents indicated that removal of the sixth day would reduce capacity to address WG priorities within protected professional learning time and would constrain planning for ongoing curriculum reform, increasing pressure on staff operating with tight time constraints.

Facilitators and barriers

Facilitators for the effective use of INSET include alignment with School Development Plans (SDPs and quality assurance cycles, opportunities for collaboration within clusters and across phases, use of internal expertise, early preparation and strategic planning and sequencing across the year, and the additional protected time created by the sixth day.

Barriers to use included workload pressures and limited planning time, the volume of perceived mandatory training, lack of funding and access to external expertise, uneven inclusion of support staff due to contractual arrangements, and scheduling or coordination challenges linked to national events and provider availability.

Support from the Welsh Government

The findings include feedback from participants on support that the WG could provide to learning settings which range from clearer articulation of intended purpose of the sixth day and earlier communication of expectations to the promotion of inclusive design principles and the provision of guidance and high quality materials that enable more effective use of INSET time.

1. WG should retain the sixth INSET day as protected professional learning time.
2. WG could provide clearer articulation of the purpose of the sixth INSET day, including illustrative examples of effective use.
3. WG could set out clearer national expectations for INSET, with earlier communication of priority themes within the annual planning cycle.
4. Local authorities and schools could review how INSET arrangements support inclusive participation, particularly for support staff, taking account of contractual arrangements and local workforce contexts.
5. WG, working with local authorities, could support the conditions that enable cluster-level collaboration, including through coordinated training windows, shared resources or regional activity.
6. Local authorities could strengthen their role in supporting collaboration and helping schools interpret national priorities within local contexts.
7. Dysgu could curate and signpost high-quality, bilingual, ready-to-use professional learning materials aligned to national priorities for use across different school contexts and staff roles.
8. WG could support schools to strengthen alignment between INSET, School Development Plans and ongoing professional learning cycles, for example through light-touch planning templates or illustrative examples.
9. WG could develop or commission proportionate, light-touch approaches to support schools in articulating and demonstrating the impact of INSET on professional practice and school development.
10. Estyn, alongside WG and other system partners, could support system-wide learning by sharing evidence of effective professional learning practice identified through inspection and engagement activity.

Report author: Kerry KilBride, Geof Andrews, Sophie Wheeler, Lili Thomas, Iestyn Allen, Nell Butler / Miller Research (UK) Ltd.

Views expressed in this report are those of the researchers and not necessarily those of the Welsh Government.

For further information please contact:

Schools Research Branch
Knowledge and Analytical Services
Welsh Government
Cathays Park
Cardiff
CF10 3NQ

Email: SchoolsResearch@wales.gov.uk

Social research number: 53/2026
Digital ISBN: 978-1-83745-309-2