Monthly Archives: March 2022

Special Needs Consultation

Posted on by
Reply

What a mess. Underlying the government’s Green Paper SEND Review – right support, right place, right time (publishing.service.gov.uk) published yesterday is a feeling that without a strong middle tier there can be no overall management of a SEND system to help our most vulnerable young people.

The DfE has recognised the need for a regional tier – that’s not up for consultation – but the Green Paper is weak on exactly what the structure below that would look like. With no coherent local government system in place across England, it will be a challenge to create a system that works effectively at the sub regional level, especially where rural ‘donuts’ surround urban unitary authorities. Schools Forum don’t seem to even receive a mention in the Green Paper, despite holding the purse strings for schools in general through the DSG. Will a hard Funding Formula make them little more than a talking shop?

The aspirations to make the NHS play the part designated for it in 2014 with the creation of EHCP is to be welcomed, although it will be interesting to see how general practice and the hospital sector step up to their responsibilities. Still, new data sharing arrangements are long overdue between health and education.

There is little said in the Green Paper about reform of the SEN Tribunals that almost unanimously find, at least in part, in favour of parents. What may be needed is an approach similar to civil court personal injury compensation, where judgements are set down, if necessary, by the high court, and only new conditions or cases need to go to a Tribunal. Saying ‘no’ all the way to the door of the Tribunal, possibly to save a local authority money should be a thing of the past. Such a system won’t be easy to create, but the present system places intolerable burdens on families in terms of both financial and emotional demands.

The Green Paper accepts that alternative provision is a mess, but doesn’t really identify the causes of the mess and which parts work well. If anything, this is an area where my suggestion of multi-purpose practices of teachers might work well and bring fringe activities within a regulatory framework. All pupils should be on a school roll until 18. Off-rolling should be a positive decision that for teenagers needs to be carefully scrutinised as to why ‘now’ and not earlier in a child’s educational journey. The child’s voice must be part of the decision, however uncomfortable that might be for some parties to that child’s education.

Hovering over all the good intentions is the spectre of funding. Perhaps this is why it is a Green and not a White Paper. Unless the Treasury finds the cash for a better system ‘fine words will butter no parsnips’ as the old saying goes.

More young people are been identified as requiring different approaches to learning than the average child and it is interesting that ‘gifted’ children no longer form part of the SEND agenda. However, an education system based upon the needs of every child is expensive and needs good coordination. The aim is there, but it will be well into the autumn before we see the result of this consultation and thus 2025 before any significant outcomes that don’t need legislative change. For changes requiring legislation it seems unlikely anything will happen this side of the next general election.

Most frightening part of the White Paper?

Posted on by
2

We will embed tutoring in every school

101. Government has invested £1 billion to establish the National Tutoring Programme. We will deliver up to 6 million tutoring packages by 2024, which when combined with our programmes to deliver tutoring for young people aged 16-19 equates to around 100 million hours of tutoring. Small group tuition has an average impact of an additional four months in primary schools and two months in secondary school, 63 and it is our vision that tutoring no longer be the preserve of families who can afford to pay for private tuition, but the right of any child in need of additional support.

102. We will continue to financially incentivise schools to provide tutoring – and we expect every school to make tutoring available to children who need it. Schools have the flexibility to use their own staff, bring in dedicated new staff or use external tutors from accredited organisations to provide high-quality tuition that best meets the needs of their pupils. Tutoring will be a core ‘academic’ option in the Pupil Premium menu. 63 Education Endowment Foundation. Teaching and Learning Toolkit. 40

103. From 2024, we will have cultivated a vibrant tutoring market, serving schools right across England. We will expect tutoring to continue to be a staple offer from schools, with schools using their core budgets – including Pupil Premium – to fund targeted support for those children who will benefit.

Opportunity for all – Strong schools with great teachers for your child (publishing.service.gov.uk)

Great idea, what’s wrong with it and why do you call it frightening?

My concern is that the consequences of this scheme might not have been thought through.

‘From 2024, we will have cultivated a vibrant tutoring market’. Not only do markets cost money to operate but there is also the question of where will these tutors come from? Will they come from the existing teacher workforce with teachers switching to tutoring from full-time teaching and, if so, where will their replacements come from?

The government does have an answer, but whether or not it has been agreed by the Home Office is another matter.

Paragraph 40 of the White Paper reads: ‘To make teaching here even more attractive to the best teachers from around the world, we will introduce a new relocation premium to help with visas and other expenses. This will be complemented by bursaries for international trainees with the potential to be brilliant teachers in priority subjects. By bringing forward legislative changes and introducing a new digital service, we will recognise high-quality teaching qualifications from all over the world in this country.’

Will the relocation premium be available to teachers returning to England after teaching in international schools or only to foreign nationals?

Fear not, there are other measures to boost teacher supply

 ‘We will therefore incentivise new teachers to work in places where they are needed most through our Levelling Up Premium. This will be worth up to £3,000 tax-free for eligible maths, physics, chemistry and computing teachers, in years one to five of their careers, who choose to work in disadvantaged schools, including in the new Education Investment Areas.’ (Paragraph 38).

Nothing about how to create more business studies, design and technology and geography teachers despite severe shortages in these subjects. Still there will be initiative to help engineers teach physics, and to improve the supply of languages teachers, although of which languages is not specified. The pledge for many teachers of Mandarin sees like something from a different age.

ITT will have more frequent ofsted visits, but seems to have escaped relatively lightly compared with some predictions.

A White Paper for an economic crisis. Reminds me of Education for All: A Framework for Expansion that was Mrs Thatcher’s attempt when Secretary of State for Education. That was scuppered by an oil price crisis.

Opportunity for All?

Posted on by
Reply

The government published it Education White Paper today. They didn’t make it easy to find the whole document, but it can be accessed at Opportunity for all – Strong schools with great teachers for your child (publishing.service.gov.uk) For younger readers, it is called a White Paper because when such documents first appeared they had white covers. Later when documents with suggestions and not proposals appeared they were called Green Papers as they had a green cover.

Enough of the history, although it is worth looking back to the last education White Paper. It promised to look at returning in-year admissions to local authorities, but nothing happened. This time on page 53 there is a graphic that just says LAs will ‘manage’ in-year admissions. It is not clear where the management role will have sanctions to back it up. I hope so.  If local authorities are provided with ‘backstop’ powers to direct in-year admissions that will be a step forward and should be put into place as soon as possible. The intention is summarised in paragraph 163. As a final safety net to cover rare circumstances where collaborative working breaks down, we will consult on a new backstop power for local authorities to direct trusts to admit children. Trusts would have the right to appeal this to the Schools Adjudicator. Please start the consultation as soon as possible – Time for Jacob’s Law | John Howson (wordpress.com)

The news in the White Paper that local authorities can run academy trusts is to be welcomed as correcting one of the wrongs of Mr Gove’s original 2010 Academies Act. However, in the spirit of strong schools, will schools in existing academy chains be able to make a transfer either to another chain or to a local authority trust, and will local authorities be able to include schools outside their boundaries in a Trust, such as Swindon schools in a Wiltshire trust or Blackpool schools in a Lancashire Trust? Will there need to be Chinese walls between an LA Trust officers and other officers with powers to direct Trust, as over admissions?

The White Paper downgrades Regional School Commissioners to Regional Directors, a less threatening title to local democracy. However, the amount of power local authorities can wield will depend upon funding. At least local trusts should have the same financial powers as the present trusts to manage central costs.

Perhaps the biggest change in policy terms in the White Paper is the ending of the freedom of parents to control the education of their children as paragraph 77 make clear, the government will also introduce legislation to establish a register for children not in school, exploring how this data should be used by local authorities and multi-agency teams to undertake their duties and support children’s education. The 1870 Act required parents to educate their children. The 2022 White Paper now also requires them to tell the authorities how they are doing that education. Will the next step be to ensure that all children receive high quality education of id the white Paper’s real time ‘Opportunity for all in state funded schools?

Overall, the White Paper is not as dramatic as it was thought it might be.

Paying more for school transport

Posted on by
Reply

The County Councils Network has recently released a new report which analyses the challenges county authorities face in delivering home to school transport services, including the impact of the record fuel price increases. Councils face difficult decisions as spiralling fuel prices impact on school transport services, report warns – County Councils Network

With fuel prices hitting record highs this month, the CCN is warning that this is having a significant impact on school transport services, with councils facing having to pay providers significantly more for operating school services and providing taxis.

According to the County Councils Network the local authorities that supplied data to this study transported 248,000 pupils for free last year, of which 51,000 were young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).

The report calls for short-term support for local authorities to help weather the storm of rising fuel prices, which has, according to the research, led to transport companies re-tendering for contracts up to 20% higher than last year.

Even before the fuel price increase, county authorities were facing yearly increases in costs in home to school transport services, particularly for SEND pupils.

Released ahead of the government’s long-awaited SEND Review, the report by the County Councils Network urges the Government’s review of SEND to address the root causes of a rise in costs and demand in SEND services, including home to school transport. The report finds an increasing number of pupils becoming eligible for Education, Health and Care Plans and an increase in young people attending special schools.

Based on data from 28 CCN member councils, the report finds:

  • County authorities spent a total of £555.6m on free school transport last year, up from £472.6m in 2016/17. This increase is largely down to a 33% rise in expenditure for pupils with SEND – up from £250m five years ago to £336m in 2021. This is the equivalent of 11% of on average council’s entire children’s services budget.
     
  • The number of pupils using SEND free school transport has increased from 41,185 in 2016/17 to 51,558 in 2020/21 – a rise of 10,373 pupils. Over the last three years, the average cost of individual pupils has increased by £206 to £6,099 a year – due to rising costs, such as fuel price increases.
     
  • Almost two-thirds of councils (60%) who responded to a separate survey for the report said that their expenditure on SEND school transport was ‘unsustainable’ and 34% said it was ‘difficult.’ Just one said it was ‘manageable’. Costs for taxis, private hire, and minibuses for these pupils had increased from £175m in 2016 to £244m in 2021.
     
  • Despite yearly growth in population numbers, and rising costs, councils’ expenditure on mainstream home to school transport has remained the same throughout the period – £212m in 2016 to £208m in 2021.

Council taxpayers have to pay the cost of any transport not covered by government grants and that is a burden not carried by those living in urban areas where most home to school transport costs fall on families.

As a result of cost pressures, many councils have had little choice but to reduce eligibility for free school transport for mainstream home to transport due to facing significant financial pressures over the period, including in SEND school transport. There were almost 20,000 fewer mainstream pupils using free transport to their school in 2021 compared to 2016/17.

Especially mean cuts are where only transport tot the ‘nearest’ school is provided and there is a system of selective education. The selective school will rarely be the nearest school and so families may not be able to take up a place at a selective school if they cannot afford the transport costs. As a twin, I understand how this can impact on some families.

The situation is even worse where the selective school is an academy in another authority as face children, for example, on Canvey Island, part of Castel Point local authority and where the nearest selective schools are in the city of Southend-on-Sea.

Councils need to publish data on how much of their home to school transport to academies is funded by government grant and how much by council Tax payers and through business rates.  

The government might also need to consider help for small rural schools that are using oil for heating, as those costs have risen sharply as well. It would be unfair if the present world situation hastened the end of rural primary schools and thus forced costs for transport even higher, threatening other local services as cash had to be diverted into supporting yet more school transport.

Public Accounts Committee concerns over the academy system

Posted on by
Reply

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has today published its latest annual report into the academies sector. Academies Sector Annual Report and Accounts 2019-20 (parliament.uk)

The Committee accepts that the government wants all schools to become academies, but doesn’t yet see a clear path for some types of schools to be able to do so. Such a move to full academisation would remove local democracy from the school system and make it much more like the NHS, with limited accountability, and no guarantee of local accountability. This does not strike me as a good move for democracy. Hopefully, the government’s plans will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper.

Also, of interests, was the PAC’s views on the financial management of academy trusts. Unlike local authorities and maintained schools, Trusts can aggregate funds and do not have to publish accounts for each school separately. Trusts could move funds between schools and create capital for new buildings at one school by levying other schools in the Trust.

The PAC said:

 ‘Academy trusts have been set up as charitable companies, with more freedoms and responsibilities than maintained schools, including being responsible for managing their own finances. There is a tension between this autonomy and the oversight role by the centre via the Education & Skills Funding Agency which is required to provide assurance to the Department who hold ultimate responsibility for the delivery of education in England. The Department provided additional financial support of £31 million to 81 academy trusts in 2019/20 to support financial recovery, build capacity, facilitate a transfer of academy schools triggered by financial or educational factors, or as a short-term advance. Of this, £21 million has been provided as non-repayable funding. The Education & Skills Funding Agency has reported that £10 million of debts held by academy trusts have been written off in 2020–21, including £5 million for one trust. We are concerned that there is a risk that a trust becomes too big to fail and could therefore see large sums of public funds being pumped into it to keep it afloat.’ (Page 7)

Writing off £10 million of debts in one year means cash that could have been spent on children’s education probably disappeared in a manner not possible with local authorities.

Of more concern is the lack of control over senior staff salaries in Trusts. To quote the PAC again;

‘17. The number of academy trusts paying at least one individual above £150,000 increased to 473 trusts (17% of trusts) in 2019/20, from 340 trusts (12%) in 2018/19. Almost two thirds of trusts (1,772; 64%) in 2019/20 reported paying at least one individual between £100,000 and £150,000, compared with just over half (1,535; 53%) in the prior year.’ (Page 14)

This is not a new issue, as my blog from 2018 highlights: CEOs pay: what’s happening? | John Howson (wordpress.com) If there were just 160 local authorities with Directors of Education, how much more cash might be available to schools that is currently disappearing due to the diseconomies of scale inherent in the model of academisation established by Michael Gove in the hurry to pass the 2010 Education Act.

So, no democratic control, high salaries for some, but pay freezes for workers. Not a good structure for our school system when we cannot even recruit enough teachers.

Some reflections on the NfER webinar on teacher supply

Posted on by
Reply

Regular readers of this blog that listened to this webinar will have learned about some interesting data from Jack Worth’s presentation, not least the effect of bursaries on recruitment into training.

Here are some of my reflections

Keep in Touch Scheme

Absolutely needed. I drafted an idea for such a scheme earlier this year.

Part-time and flexible working

Good idea, but only if it increases recruitment. Needs research into balance between those working full-time and those only working part-time and effects on pupils and school ethos. Still, it is a better option than a procession of supply teachers.

Diversity and protected characteristics

It is 25 years this year since a Minister at the Department first addressed a conference on attracting a wider range of individuals into teaching. I have produced two significant reports for government and one for a teacher association during that time, both highlighted the issues that were discussed today. London is doing better than the rest of the country, but ‘young, White and female and able-bodied’ still seems to characterise the majority of those accepted into teaching. Some groups still find it disproportionally hard to become a teacher. There is a need to review where ITT places are located in relation to under-represented groups, and what happens if a particular group applies in large numbers for a particular course?

Here are some issues not mentioned this afternoon

Middle leadership and teacher shortages – discussed in the previous post on this blog

Teaching as a global profession – good or bad for recruitment into schools. No mention of iQTS this afternoon.

Tutoring as a career alternative to teaching or combined with flexible working in schools?

Many years ago, I wondered whether groups of teachers could band together to increase their pay by offering their services not as employees but as consultants. A group could take on teaching contracts alongside tutoring, delivery of professional development and creation of teaching resources as well as adult training and research to provide a varied career. The contract could specify the delivery but not the person delivering it. However, most people that enter teaching aren’t entrepreneurial, so such an idea probably wouldn’t work.

Underlying all the points being made during the webinar was the issue of the free market in teaching. Teachers can decide where they want to teach and if lucky can be paid a bursary to train to teach in a private school. As one speaker said, and has been apparent whenever there is a teacher shortage, teachers are more likely to end up in ‘good’ schools rather than challenging schools when demand exceeds the supply of teachers. Unless there is a change of attitude, levelling up is an impossible dream or a political con trick.

Should we link training places to schools on an expanded Teach First model whereby entrants to training are linked to schools and paid a salary from day one with pension contribution on top. Preparation, like the famous Project X of UCLA, should be linked to the demands of teaching in challenging schools and not how to teach in successful schools.

Finally, the new model of mentoring reminds me of what were once called Advisory Teachers. Mentoring might work better if the issue of the Middle Tier had been worked out rather than in the same disjoined way that school placements are created.   This is another area where a discussion of free market versus planned provision might be useful.

It will be interesting to see what the White Paper has to say on any or all of these issues. However, White Papers can often identify problems, but may not lead to solutions.

Labour Market for Teacher: don’t overlook the middle leadership needs of schools

Posted on by
Reply

The labour market for teachers can be divided into three main segments: classroom teachers; middle leaders and senior leadership. The first and last receive the most attention from researchers, but middle leadership needs are often overlooked and can be under-researched. This seems to be the case in the latest NfER research into the labour market for teachers published today. Teacher Labour Market in England – Annual Report 2022 – NFER

The market for middle leaders is closely tied to the classroom teacher market because middle leaders start off as classroom teachers. How quickly they will be promoted depends upon the subject or specialisms. In some subjects, where there are lots of part-timers, promotion can come swiftly. Music teachers working in small secondary schools have been known to be in charge even as NQTs, but hopefully such a state of affairs is rare these days.

Of more concern are the subjects where there has been chronic under-supply of new entrants into the profession. Last week, I talked to a group of headteachers under the auspices of the Corporation of London about this issue.

Here were my findings in relation to the possible supply of middle leaders in just one subject: design and technology.

The ITT Census for 2013, conducted by the DfE, recorded some 410 people preparing to teach design and technology via a range of different routes.

After one year of teaching, the number left in the profession was no more than 340 or, allowing for some dropout before completion of their courses, perhaps 5%, then only 320 would still have been in teaching.

Fast forward five years, and using the DfE wastage rates as reported to the STRB, then the remaining numbers of this cohort left in teaching might be in the range of 250-320 teachers.

Using TeachVac data on vacancies, something not available to NfER, recorded vacancies for design and technology teachers with a TLR were 390 in 2020; 470 in 2021 and 230 to date in 2022. Now some of these might be ‘recruitment’ TLRs with little leadership demands, but if even half are genuine middle leadership positions, then they will make a significant demand upon the remaining teachers from the 2013 cohort.

When a single cohort is not large enough to provide sufficient middle leaders there can be a temptation to require leadership of teachers before they are secure in their grip on teaching and learning. It should be possible to use the DfE’s databases to check how soon TLR2s are awarded to teachers in shortage subjects and in what type of schools?

The need for challenging schools to appoint inexperienced teachers to middle leadership positions in the teacher shortages of the early 1970s was the topic that led me to start my research into the labour market for teachers, and also to establish in 1978 an early leadership development course for middle leaders in Haringey’s secondary schools.

Professional development for middle leadership is as important as ever as is ensuring a sufficient supply of teachers with the knowledge and experience to take up middle leadership roles.

Labour Market for Teachers

Posted on by
Reply

Tomorrow the NfER will publish their report on the Labour Market for Teachers. I assume it will say very similar things to the TeachVac Report published in January. A copy of which is available on request

Of more concern at present is not the 2022 labour market – lots of vacancies; not enough applicants in many subjects – but the outlook for 2023.  For more on 2022 see Recruitment 2022: a rough ride to come | John Howson (wordpress.com)

A quick analysis of the DfE’s ‘Get into Teaching’ site reveals that there are still high percentages of courses with the ‘vacancies here’ flag waving. Top of the list is the small number of ‘science’ courses, with 96% of those courses showing vacancies earlier today. Not far behind is Physics, with 93% of the 783 courses showing vacancies.

Interestingly, on 6th March, there were only 777 courses listed. Even though the DfE provides a range of filters, how do you select the best course from 783 varieties? One interesting factor is that a search on Physics ‘QTS only’ courses willing to consider those with a Third-Class degree, such a search brings up 47 courses. Most of the providers of these courses are located in or around the London area or are located in the wider South East region.

When is the government going to provide a strategy that allows all training places in Physics to have a realistic chance of being filled? It isn’t possible to level up, especially in areas with selective schools and many private schools, if there are insufficient teachers in a particular subject or phase. That’s been obvious for many years, but, apart from bursaries, little has been achieved, especially with the failure of the salary scheme option within School Direct.

The good news, well comparatively good news, is that only 42% of the 104 psychology, as opposed to physics, courses currently have vacancies. In PE, two thirds of courses still have vacancies, higher than might be expected for mid-March.

Even 1,412 out of the staggering 1,677 course options for those wanting to train to teach in the primary sector still have vacancies.

Of course, applicants don’t know whether a course has one vacancy or many from the DfE website. These days adding such a feature should be relatively easy to do, even if only in the form of a set of traffic lights: green for lots of space; amber ably quickly; red few spaces left and course might be full by the time your application is received.

I hope the DfE is conducting some evaluation of how the users find the DfE’s site listing courses. Perhaps a map of locations for the course’s teaching base and schools used for practical elements might be another useful addition?

Of course, if the DfE makes any changes to places available all the current evidence might be of little more than historical value. Postgraduate initial teacher training targets: 2022 to 2023 – Official statistics announcement – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) There will apparently be an announcement in April.

TeachVac launches new service for schools

Posted on by
Reply

The DfE Vacancy site for teachers is still a muddled mess. Eight years ago, well before the DfE woke up to the idea that the internet could be used for low cost but effective job matching, I helped create TeachVac http://www.teachvac.co.uk and made it a free service for schools and teachers.

The basic rationale was simple – modern technology can cut the cost of finding a job and schools could save money as a result. After the Public Accounts Committee complained that the DfE didn’t have a grip on the labour market for teachers, the DfE set about creating a job board of their own.

At the start of the pandemic, I offered to share vacancies that the DfE didn’t upload with them to help to create a single free platform for teachers. Go away, I was told.

So, TeachVac still offers a free service, but is now launching its premium service whereby a school can ensure its vacancies are at the top of the list of matches a teacher receives each day. The service also provides a reminder after a few days so that teachers see the job more than once. Schools also receive labour market updates each month. All this for £500 per year for secondary schools and even less for primary schools across both state and private sectors schools.

Contact enquiries@oxteachserv.com for more information or to sign up and receive an early bird discount.

But, back the DfE site. Where, of course, teachers can only search for jobs in state schools. So, the site isn’t useful to those that don’t mind whether they work in state or private schools.

The front page of the DfE site is a real muddle. There are lists of ‘towns/cities and ‘counties’ although Chester West and Chester East aren’t counties, but unitary authorities. Towns within shire counties such as Oxford, Exeter, Chelmsford and many others don’t have a listing on the front page.  London has a single listing, not even split into the different pay area: not helpful if there are lots of vacancies in the Capital’s schools.

Milton Keynes receives a mention, but the rest of Buckinghamshire doesn’t. Still, there is a search buttons for key words and locations. A search on ‘secondary’ and ‘Oxford’ brings up 12 results. Four are non-teaching posts; two are in special schools or PRUs and only six are in secondary schools.

There is an alert function, but if it sends non-teaching posts as well as teaching vacancies it doesn’t do the job for which it is intended, unless the civil servants at the DfE think teachers that cannot find a teaching post will consider non-teaching roles and have the appropriate qualifications for such positions.

TeachVac is breaking records each month with 500,000+ matches so far in 2022, and over one million in this school year to date.

The earlier a school signs up for the premium service, the higher up the daily list of matches it will be placed. Don’t delay: sign up today by emailing enquiries@oxteachserv.com to express interest.

Buddy, can you spare a dime?

Posted on by
Reply

Did schools really save money in the five-year period up to 2019-2020? The DfE has published a study showing the aim of ‘saving’ at least one billion pounds during that period was achieved. Progress in schools savings and resource management – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

The methodology of the study was to measure savings as the difference between actual non-staff expenditure in 2019-20 and what was estimated non-staff expenditure would have been in 2019-20 if schools had not changed their spending behaviour. This is expressed as the difference between the expenditure line and the counterfactual line as to where expenditure without saving would have been.

It is worth noting that the period covered was one where primary school rolls were generally on the increase, and for many secondary school rolls were either constant or falling. Academies and maintained schools also operate on different financial years, so that could be an additional complicating factor.

A significant proportion of the saving came in the final year 2019-2020. I am not sure whether that meant that the final third of that financial year for academies covered the first four months of the pandemic when, for instance, there would have been a significant drop in expenditure on school meals, as most children were forced to stay at home.

The target of £1 Billion pounds was set after the National Audit Office (NAO) report “Financial sustainability of schools” published in 2016 identified that schools would incur cost pressures of £3bn between then and 2019- 20. The DfE then produced analysis which compared schools with different levels of spending but similar pupil characteristics and levels of attainment.

According to the report,

 ‘the DfE estimated the impact of bringing the spending of the top 25% highest per-pupil non-staff spending schools down to the level of those at the 75th percentile. This analysis indicated that, schools could plausibly save around £1 bn on their non-staff spending and so this became the ambition of the SRM portfolio’ (Page 3)

It is not clear from the report whether that is what happened, or whether the schools better at managing their costs took more out of the system, thus widening the gap between those schools good at achieving savings and the rest of the sector. Since both primary and secondary schools were included, it would have been interesting to know how much of the saving was due to fixed costs that don’t alter with changing pupil numbers – it presumably cost a similar amount to heat and light a school even if pupil numbers fluctuate. The saving would be more impressive and longer-lasting if it was the variable costs that had been reduced. Primary schools often have higher fixed costs as a proportion of income, although many of these are staff costs.  

And, as the DfE note in the definitions on page 5 of the report.

‘“Saving” in this context does not mean a cash saving. We measure savings by comparing actual non-staff spend to where we expected non-staff spending to be had schools not changed spending behaviour – the counterfactual. We would calculate cash savings by taking away actual non-staff spend in 2019-20 from actual non-staff spending in 2015-16.’

And finally, it looks as if the special school sector was excluded if the study was only on primary and secondary schools. It would be interesting to know about cost pressures in that sector and whether similar saving was possible?