Author Archives: John Howson

Unknown's avatar

About John Howson

Former county councillor in Oxfordshire and sometime cabinet member for children services, education and youth.

What is the role of the State in schooling?

Posted on by
Reply

This is an interesting philosophical question for a Sunday morning. It arises out of my post yesterday questioning a decision of the Labour government to allow a state school to open sites overseas, presumably for profit. Has Labour gone mad? | John Howson

The genesis of that blog  post was a tes magazine piece about a grammar school in London teaming up with a global brand to open sites in Dubai and Delhi Queen Elizabeth’s School to open fee-paying school in Dubai | Tes

What is the role of the state in schooling in the second quarter of the 21st century? When the 1870 Education Act was passed, as one of the Gladstone government’s first Bills before the new parliament, it was to ensure all children received at least some education. There was a feeling that a lack of literacy was resulting in British’s industry losing its advantage in the industrial revolution to countries with better educated populations.

After 1870, the State increasingly became the default position for schooling. Parents didn’t have to use it, but if they didn’t choose an alternative, basically the private sector or home schooling, then attending the local school from five to early teens was required of children. State paternalism or practical politics to allow the economy to continue to be successful?

155 years later, and we have the State, now run by a Labour government, sanctioning a state-funded school partnering with a global company to create school sites overseas selling its brand of education.

Why not allow this? After all, as someone pointed out on LinkedIn, the State too often rescues loss-making industries, why then shouldn’t it make money out of education?

Of course, the State already helps British Industry and commerce make money from exporting aspects of our successful education enterprise, from textbooks to teachers and private schools with sites overseas, as well as private schools bring in overseas students and their fees the government offers help and advice.

So, should State capitalism in this country support state schools opening branches overseas, and those schools making a profit on that work, to be ploughed back into their school in England, thus potentially earning it more cash than the State provides?

Firstly, profit is not a given. Secondly, how will the countries where such schools are located react. Happy not to worry about attracting expatriate workers because there will be high quality education for their children. And, also happy for its own citizens to attend such schools, with a different curriculum to what State schools in that country might teach?

The issue of state schools topping up their funding, whether from parents, donors or now profits, has worried me ever since I taught in Tottenham in the 1970s. School fetes, a feature of those days, run by primary schools in Highgate made thousands of pounds, those run by schools in Tottenham couldn’t match such income. Was this acceptable? At that time, local authorities ran schools and could compensate for this discrepancy. Now, the National Funding Formula make such compensation more challenging, except through the Pupil Premium.

The entrepreneur in me applauds the school making money overseas; the politician takes the opposite view. In this case, I think the politician wins. We need to debate afresh the role of the State in schooling in England, and both its purpose and its limits.

Has Labour gone mad?

Posted on by
3

Queen Elizabeth’s School, a selective grammar school in North London, is to open an affiliate fee-paying branch school in Dubai – becoming the first state school to open overseas. Queen Elizabeth’s School to open fee-paying school in Dubai | Tes

I am going to state my opposition to this proposal outright. If we had a sufficiency of high-quality teachers for all our schools, then I might, just might, look on this as part of the export drive using resources not currently needed for the home market.

But the blunt truth is that we don’t have enough qualified teachers for our secondary schools. It is bad enough private schools offering UK teachers jobs overseas, but most of them probably weren’t in the state system anyway.

Here we seem to have a state funded school spending leadership time becoming part of a global brand, and at the very least risking taking a couple of hundred teachers out of the UK system to teach middle class children in the UAE and India.

 Even if the investment is funded by Global Education, a company with a strong base working with universities and higher level vocational providers, I am not sure why a Labour government has allowed the DfE to approve this move?

I do think there should be a policy designed to maximise UK revenue from our strong background in education across the board, but a government’s first duty is to its own citizens, and this move by a state school, along with the growth of our private school’s overseas campuses, risks the education of our own citizens by sucking teachers overseas, and away from schools that badly need them, not only in some of our most deprived communities.

The DfE must make clear both why it approved this venture, and what happens if lots more state schools want to go down this road as a means of earning income to support the homebase.

As regular readers know, I am a strong support of democratic accountability for our schooling, and the academy system doesn’t provide that support to our system. Rather it provides fragmentation and encourages this sort of move all the while costing the system millions of pounds in unnecessary CEO’s salaries and other overheads.

This move reminds me of the Attlee government struggling with the aftermath of the Second World War and restricting sales of cars and other items in the home market to boost exports. Here we have a Labour government opening the doors to sending UK teachers to educate children of parent s that can afford their fees, and to directly set up in competition with private schools.

I might have understood a Conservative government sanctioning this move, but not a Labour government.

Please tell me I have missed some important value here.

.

Excellent Christmas Present

Posted on by
Reply

Excellent Christmas present for anyone interested in education or politics. £9 e-book on amazon or £12 plus £2.50 p&p for signed copy direct from dataforeducation@johnohowson

Sample content at: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0FM84M3SX/ref=sr_1_2?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Ja2jQ8JWKzm1XbVFd1O0GL9pWmt0RP-y9kKowNMdNALI4aiNoApcLhXrph2KReV129XhXij1o0nFR_3lhNj5hFUezqp0NTFjyZgcOZmDVq1dNXvgGB2-8fUUTGwkfkCv-RT9NauN-j0zw3digD6_ctOlJBV9RWNq-qL5WJ9XsWjNrLJBQMYxn8XWYP11bv1Ci0guE7srVSVfSRE2xjpShoU85Q2BXBQ_9mzFqwNRIMo.TArvGiYetMB8AVett_7nOdAchUvw90IzCA63PTtzpvg&dib_tag=se&qid=1755079949&refinements=p_27%3AJOHN+HOWSON&s=digital-text&sr=1-2&text=JOHN+HOWSON&asin=B0FM84M3SX&revisionId=e834512b&format=3&depth=1

Fine words butter no parsnips

Posted on by
Reply

What is one to make of a government that announces an expansion of the place of the creative arts in the National Curriculum review literally weeks after cutting the bursary for trainee teachers of music? Labour’s determination to recruit new teachers doesn’t include music | John Howson 8th October 2026

If I am being kind, it would be that one part of the DfE doesn’t know what the other is doing. Recruiting trainee music teachers has been a challenge over the past few years, and with universities eyeing the future of music degree courses, recruitment probably won’t get any easier.

Did a Minister, when sanctioning the bursary withdrawal, ask what the forthcoming Curriculum Review might have to say about the subject?  If so, why was the bursary withdrawn if the creative arts re to play a larger part in the new curriculum?

Hopefully, someone at Westminster will ask this question over the next few days. Perhaps media arts programmes might also like to interrogate a Minister about this curious state of affairs.

Of course, it is possible that the talk of expanding provision is just that, and the government has no real intention of putting funds behind any expansion in order to make it happen. Blame can then be laid at the door of schools for not switching resources into the creative subjects.

After all the government just said that

‘A new core enrichment entitlement for every pupil – covering civic engagement; arts and culture; nature, outdoor and adventure; sport and physical activities; and developing wider life skills.’ New curriculum to give young people the skills for life and work – GOV.UK

Not much meat on the bone there. Delving into the detailed response from the government we find that

“We recognise the Review’s concerns around access to music and that some schools require support to deliver music well, including from specialist teachers, particularly to help pupils to develop their knowledge and skills in learning to read music and play instruments. We continue to invest in instrument stocks through the music hubs. Our £25 million investment will provide over 130,000 additional instruments, equipment and other music technology by the end of 2026, with around 40,000 already in the hands of teachers and pupils. We will consider how we maximise the impact of this investment to ensure the opportunity of and access to a reformed music curriculum is fully realised.”  Government response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review page 34.

Not much joined up thinking there. Encouraging singing has a much lower capital cost than instruments, and can capture more pupils – see the great scheme at Debry Cathedral that has over 900 possible singers.

The first sentence of the paragraph bears no relation to the rest of the paragraph, so don’t hold out hopes that music will achieve more than lots of instruments sitting on shelves or being played by children whose parents can afford the lessons.  

I am very disappointed in the music section of the government’s response, especially that now I chair the Oxfordshire Music Board and so music is a particular interest of mine.

Not more B…..y Vikings

Posted on by
Reply

During her interview on the Today Programme, just before 8am this morning, I heard the Secretary of State talking about the need to review how to remove duplication in the teaching of the National Curriculum. That very sentiment was in part the Reason Kenneth Baker introduced a National Curriculum in the 1988 Education Reform Act.

 In the 1980s, discussion was about the repetition of the same topic, with little additional learning taking place when it was taught in both the primary and secondary sectors, so that an eight-year-old was drawing the same Viking boat as a thirteen-year-old – we didn’t have ‘year with numbers’ back then. There was both duplication and a lack of progression.

This morning, the Secretary of State cited the lack of coordination over languages between what is taught in primary schools and the secondary schools they feed into as an issue.

Now, during the past forty years since the idea of a National Curriculum became common currency in education, progress has been made in codifying what is taught, and England’s PISA scores have increased. Both no doubt great achievements.

However, many of my maths friends tell me there has been a price to pay in their subject. I think the idea of a new diagnostic test in Year 8 for English and mathematics highlights the dilemma facing secondary schools. How do you staff a school to both develop pupils’ knowledge and experience when they are on track, but also work to try to build on the knowledge and skills of those that have fallen behind where they are expected to be at that age?

Will the test be used to see the difference a school achieves in Progress 8 between the end of Year 8 and GSCE? More importantly, what will be the consequences of under-achievement? If there are no consequences, then why would schools do more than pay lip service to these new tests?

 In the original National Curriculum, there were 10 levels, and every child had another level to aspire to reach. That was about motivation, not checking for failure. After all, as Phil Willis sometime Lib Dem spokesperson on education used to say, ‘you don’t make pigs fatter by just weighting them.’

But, back to the issue of continuity across all subjects. This requires mandated programmes of work about what is taught and when to be fully achievable across all schools. Such rigidity risks undermining teacher flexibility and professionalism as it has been recognised in the past.

However, in a more mobile society, some continuity of delivery across the country must be a price schools have to pay to support change. Hopefully, technology is the friend of teachers in that respect. The digitising of the curriculum is a useful suggestion, and one Oxford Brookes University’s School of Education first undertook in the early 1990s, when increased computer power made it possible.

Elsewhere, in the announcement, I applaud the extension of the National Curriculum to all schools, but am horrified that support for the IB has been withdrawn from the small number of schools teaching that curriculum. Here is another example of national direction versus local flexibility.

In Oxfordshire, with many parents from across Europe working in the science and technology industries, this rigidity of approach might be counterproductive if the Europa School cannot continue teaching a language-based curriculum.  Westminster may not always know best.

Classroom teacher turnover in London needs watching

Posted on by
Reply

Historically, the turnover rate for classroom teachers in London has tended to be higher than elsewhere in England

YearInner LondonOuter London
2016/1714.9%12.5%
2017/1813.1%11.9%
2018/1912.8%11.4%
2019/209.9%8.4%
2020/2111.1%9.6%
2021/2212.8%11.1%
2022/2312.3%10.7%
2023/2412.5%10.7%

Source DfE evidence to STRB October 2025 Data annex

In 2016/17, turnover for classroom teachers in the Inner London boroughs reached 14.9%, or around one in seven classroom teachers either leaving the profession or moving school. Three years later, in the year where covid disrupted the summer term, turnover rates dropped below 10% for the only time in the last eight years. Once the pandemic subsided, turnover quickly returned to over 12%, or one in eight teachers.

In Outer London turnover rates have followed a similar pattern to those in Inner London, but a couple of percentage points lower than in the Inner London boroughs.

By way of contrast, in the North East, during 2023/24 turnover for classroom teachers was just 7.7%, some 4.8% lower than in Inner London schools.

Leaving aside the two years where covid affected the recruitment round (2019/20 and 2020/21), the national turnover rate for all levels of posts (classroom, leadership and headship) has generally been between 9-10%, but has been falling. In 2023/24 it was 9% compared with 10.6% in 2016/17.

Rates of turnover for assistant head and deputy heads probably reflect demand side issues more than what is happening on the supply side. When school rolls are rising, new schools may be created increasing demand: falling rolls may mean posts are cutback, and demand reduced, so less turnover.

Headship turnover is very closely linked to the age profile of headteachers. When a cohort of new younger headteachers has replaced a generation that has retired, turnover is likely to fall for a few years. However, turnover tends to be within a narrow range of between 9.5-10.5% per year. There is now no discernible London effect on headteacher turnover, as there used to be many years ago when headteacher salaries were more tightly controlled.

Might we now be entering a period of stability, with lower turnover rates for classroom teachers , especially should the possible upheaval in the graduate job market created by the AI revolution coincide with the period of stable rolls in the secondary secto,r and falling rolls in the primary sector?

YearPrimarySecondarySTEM subjectsNon-STEMAll Teachers
2016/1786.3583.1%81.2%84.5%84.9%
2023/2490.0%89.4%88.0%90.2% 89/7%

The table taken from various tables in the DfE evidence to the STRB shows a consistent trend of improved retention for teachers at the end of the first year of service. However, the same tables show that there is still a job to be done to retain these teachers in larger numbers beyond their first few years of service. The government needs to be aware that teaching is now a global career, and teachers from England can easily find work overseas.

Overseas teachers in England. More or less?

Posted on by
Reply

How far have teachers from outside the United Kingdom helped keep schools in England staffed during the period when there were teacher shortages? Although it takes a great deal of research to know what and where these teachers are working in England, the DfE in its evidence to the STRB (Teachers Pay Body) did provide some interesting data about changes in numbers of these teachers by their country of origin, between the 2015/16 and 2023/24 November teacher census returns. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evidence-to-the-strb-2026-pay-award-for-teachers-and-leaders data annex

For the purpose of this blog, countries have been divided into three groups: EEA – effectively all of Europe; countries with 20th century links to the United Kingdon, either as current Commonwealth countries or for other historical reasons, and countries that do not fit into either of the two other groups.

Taking the EEA countries first. It might be expected that post-BREXIT the numbers their had reduced. This is true for some countries, including  France and Germany, and, more interestingly, for the Irish Republic, where there was a loss of more than 900 teachers between 2015/16 census and the 2023/34 census.

EEA2015/162023/24difference
France22102085-125
Germany645605-40
Ireland35202595-925
Netherlands2252250
Sweden9590-5
-1095

Elsewhere in the EEA list of countries, there were more teachers in 2023/24 than in 2015/16

EEA2015/162023/24difference
Austria60600
Belgium951005
Bulgaria100205105
Czech Republic7510025
Denmark65650
Finland60600
Greece260590330
Hungary17527095
Italy485850365
Malta30300
Norway253510
Other EEA153015
Poland11551540385
Portugal255430175
Republic of Croatia406020
Republic of Latvia458035
Republic of Lithuania11016050
Romania350740390
Slovak Republic15018030
Slovenia, Republic406020
Spain12552100845
Switzerland50555
2905

There were nearly 2,000 more EEA teachers in England in 2023/24 according to these numbers. Greece, Italy and Poland between them accounting for nearly half the increase in EEA teacher numbers, and Spain alone, a further 40% of the total.

For countries with historic links to the United Kingdom there has been a marked decline in teachers from Australia, New Zealand and Canada recorded in the DfE census, and increase in teachers from Jamaica, some countries in Africa, and from the Indian sub-continent.

LINKS TO UK2015/162023/24difference
Australia16851290-395
Canada15801330-250
Guyana6045-15
New Zealand745480-265
Sierra Leone8575-10
Trinidad & Tobago10595-10
-945

Jamaica, India and Pakistan and South Africa together account for the bulk of the increase in teachers from this group of countries.

LINKS TO UK2015/162023/24difference
Bangladesh10011515
Cyprus559540
Ghana515665150
India8651615750
Jamaica7451550805
Kenya14516015
Malaysia7510025
Mauritius11513520
Nigeria580860280
Pakistan280560280
South Africa15751815240
Sri Lanka11016555
Uganda709020
Zimbabwe37545075
2770

Teacher numbers from other countries not in the above two groups tend to be small in number.

Israel was the only country with fewer teachers, down from 60 to 55; a loss of just five teachers.

ROW2015/162023/24difference
Algeria559035
Brazil6012565
Cameroon709020
China145315170
Colombia559540
Iran13016030
Morocco558530
Other ROW9551540585
Russia8012040
Turkey10017070
Ukraine359560
USA845985140
1285

China and the USA were the only two countries providing more than 100 teachers during the period between 2015/16 and 2023/24.

As Michael Gove provided QTS to teachers trained in the USA over a decade ago, the number of teachers from the USA seems surprisingly small. However, it may not include those teaching in international schools in England that are part of the private sector.  

While it is clear that a substantially more ‘overseas’ teachers were recorded in the 2023/24 census than in the 2015/26 census, their numbers alone would not have been enough to have solved the teacher supply crisis. Might they have made a difference to the percentage of teachers from some ethnic groups?

DfE confirms secondary ITT shortfall in evidence to STRB

Posted on by
Reply

The DfE’s evidence to the STRB (pay review body for teachers) contains some useful information about the state of the teaching profess, and changes over the past decade and a half since the DfE moved the teacher census from January to November each year. Much has remained the same, across the whole time period. But, before delving into the past, it is worth looking at the table for offers on secondary subjects for 2025 that I created for an earlier post, but now with the data from Table FD4-FD6 of the STRB evidence Evidence to the STRB: 2026 pay award for teachers and leaders – GOV.UK

Interestingly, the DfE doesn’t seem to have included the offers against targets that might have help the STRB to see where shortfalls are likely once the ITT census is published in December.

SubjectTarget2025/26% increase Sept on Juneaccepted Sept 25 FD6 DfE to STRBover/under target
Total Secondary19,27026%16843-2,427
Primary7,65034%98802,230
Chemistry73049%909179
Biology98536%1397412
Mathematics2,30035%2617317
Design & Technology96533%678-287
Art & Design68033%902222
Geography93533%98146
Classics6032%42-18
English1,95031%1760-190
Drama62030%273-347
Business Studies90029%235-665
Music56528%343-222
Religious Education78028%418-362
Others2,52025%360-2,160
History79023%936146
Modern Languages1,46021%1428-32
Physics1,41019%1313-97
Physical Education72517%1491766
Computing8955%761-134

As I suggested in my previous post, despite the renewed attraction of teaching for new graduates, there are still some subjects that won’t meet their target. Interestingly, the target for recruiting primary teachers is likely to be massively exceeded this year. Whether all those trainees will find jobs next summer is an interesting question.

With the continued shortfall against targets, where do schools find their staff from, and are they appropriately qualified? The answer to the second part of the question seems to be it depends on whether the school is in Pupil Premium decile 1 or decile 10. (Table D7) The data in this table suggests that schools in decline 1 have higher teacher wastage rates; higher percentages of unqualified teachers; higher percentages of teachers with less experience of teaching and a higher percentage of lesson taught by teachers not seen as qualified in the subject they are teaching. None of this is very surprising, but if the government wants to do something to level up outcomes, then they should pay attention to these percentages.

As to where schools find their teachers to ensure they are fully staffed if there are shortfalls in the numbers emerging from training, there has been a shift in the number of teachers coming from the old dominions, and an increase in those from other members of the Commonwealth. I will discuss these changes in more detail in another blog, as well as trends in recruitment for Europe.

Finally, it is worth noting that the secondary school teacher population expressed as Full Time equivalents (FTEs) barely changed between November 2010 and November 2020, increasing by just 265 FTEs, from 218,736 to 219,001. By contrast, the primary teacher FTEs in the same period increased from 196,258 to 215,632 by November 2024, although this was below the 225,537 FTEs recorded in November 2020, before pupil numbers began to fall.

Pay your bus fare to learn

Posted on by
Reply

The government has responded to the House of Commons Select Committee report of earlier this year about bus services in England. I am sad to see that not only will free transport not be available nationally for those under the age of 22, but the government doesn’t even seem prepared to concede that there is an anomaly regarding free transport to school or college for those aged between 16-18.Buses connecting communities: Government Response

Recommendation 15

The Department’s review of the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme should consider piloting a free bus pass for under-22s, valid for travel at any time of day. This would support access to work and skills opportunities for younger people and help embed long-term public transport use.

Response from the government 

The Government recognises the benefits that free travel for under-22s could bring. However, we are operating in a challenging fiscal environment and the future funding for bus services has already been allocated through the Spending Review, with no funding available for such a scheme. Expanding concessionary travel would therefore be unaffordable within this SR period without diverting funding away from maintaining current bus service levels.

I read the dead hand of HM Treasury here. Perhaps the Select Committee could also have sent the recommendation to the Department for Education for their views, although I suspect the answer would be the same. Local authorities serving rural areas cannot afford to subsidise 16-18 travel as might be the case in the large urban areas.

My previous post showed how out of line education in Oxfordshire is compared with other key indicators for the districts within the county. Should the NHS pay more to support children with SEND? | John Howson This is a missed opportunity by the government to improve education for those in rural areas living in poverty. Sadly, it seems like a missed chance. Both a lack of ambition and a lack of resources seem to be the reasons.