Category Archives: local government

1,500 posts and counting

Posted on by
1

When I wrote my first post on this blog, on the 25th of January 2013, I little though that I would reach 1,500 posts. However, despite stopping posting for 18 months, between the autumn of 2023 and May this year, while I was otherwise occupied as a cabinet member on Oxfordshire County Council the blog has now reached the milestone of 1,500 posts, including 40 so far this year since I started the blog up again this May.

Since one of the features of the blog has been commenting on numbers, here is a bit of self-indulgence. The blog has had 175,983 views since its inception, from 93,875 visitors, and has attracted 1,459 comments. The average length of a post has been between 550-670 words, although there have been a few longer posts in response to consultations and Select Committee inquiries.

How much holiday do teacher have? is the post with the most views – more than 6,500 and rising. Some posts have had no views, but are still an important record of my thoughts. The United Kingdom has been responsible for the most visitors: not a surprise, as most posts are about education in England. However, the USA comes second, with more than 15,000 views. Apart from some former French speaking countries in West Africa, Greenland and Paraguay, almost all other countries have had someone that has viewed the blog at least once.

Later this year, I will be publishing a book of the 2013 posts from the blog, and at that point they will disappear from public view. If you want to register for the book, check on Amazon after August 2025 or email dataforeducation@gmail.com for publication information. Alternatively, ask your favourite bookshop or library to order a copy.

I am sometimes asked about my favourite post. With 1,500 to choose from, that’s difficult, as many haven’t seen the light of day for a decade or so. However, Am I a blob? From 2013, was fun to write, and the posts about Jacob’s Law finally brought about a change in the legislation over admissions in the current bill going through parliament.

Most posts have been written, as this one is, in one session from start to finish, with editing just to tidy up my thoughts. Some are more passionate than others, and many are about teacher supply issues, where I am also researching a book on the subject covering the past 60 years of ‘feast and famine’. Much of the recent history has been well chronicled in this blog.

Thanks for reading, and for the comments. Who would have thought that someone that failed ‘O’ level English six times would end up writing a blog!  Funny old world.

Do better funded schools exclude fewer pupils?

Posted on by
Reply

The DfE published the annual data for exclusions and suspensions from schools during the 2023/24 school-year this week. Suspensions and permanent exclusions in England: 2023 to 2024 – GOV.UK Sadly, there are more pupils being excluded than in recent years, and my post from July 2018 Bad news on exclusions | John Howson reflects much , at least at the national level, of what is contained in the latest report on 2023/24. Boys on free school meals, and with SEND, and from a minority group are at highest risk of being excluded, especially when they are in Year 9, and, as ever, the reasons is most likely to have been ‘persistent disruptive behaviour’.

With the worsening recruitment crisis in schools, allied to a challenging financial environment, an increase in exclusions and suspensions was to be expected. What the data doesn’t tell us is whether schools with high exclusion rates are linked to specific academy trusts, and also to high levels of teacher turnover.

I wrote a blog about policies for reducing exclusions in May Reducing exclusions from schools | John Howson and I would hope that if the staffing situation does settle down, so might the number of pupils being banished from school.

As ever, I am struck by the funding issue. London, the best funded part of England has some of the lowest rates for exclusion and suspensions. There are 17 London boroughs in the list of the 25 local authorities with the lowest rate of suspensions in 2023/24, and 19 in the similar list for secondary exclusions. In the list of ten local authorities with the highest rates of exclusion are five authorities in the North East. I think that there may be something in this data that needs further exploration, especially as I would expect teacher recruitment to be easier in the North East than in London.

Interestingly, in view of the debate about mobile phones in schools, the number of suspensions for ‘inappropriate use of social media or online technology’ only increased from 11,419 to 11,614, an insignificant change between 2022/23 and 2023/24 especially compared with the increase in exclusions for ‘persistent disruptive behaviour’ from 446,676 to 569,921 over the same period. Of course, much comes down t how a decision on which box to tick when the exclusion is being reported and the latter category may hide suspensions that actually belong in one of the other categories. This is the risk when there are too many choices for a school to make.

The increase of around 25,000 in assaults leading to suspensions must be very worrying, although I wonder whether most are ‘common assault’ rather than ‘assault leading to actually bodily harm’ or ’GBH’ to use the criminal code levels of violence against another.

Some numbers are so small it is a wonder that they are still collected. Were only 69 pupils – up from 50 the previous year- permanently excluded for theft. Perhaps schools have nothing worth nicking these days.

I hope that next year, we might read of at least a levelling out of the rates of exclusions and suspensions and perhaps a return to a downward trend, especially if there is a relationship between funding and how schools can cope with disruptive pupils.  

What Lib Dems want for SEND pupils and their families

Posted on by
Reply

I was delighted to see the Liberal Democrats weighing in on the SEND debate by writing to the Prime minister and setting out five key principles behind any reform of the SEND system. This is what their letter to the Prime minister said:

Our five principles and priorities for SEND reform are as follows:

  1. Putting children and families first Children’s rights to SEND assessment and support must be maintained and the voices of children and young people with SEND and of their families and carers must be at the centre of the reform process.
  2. Boosting specialist capacity and improving mainstream provision Capacity in state special provision must be increased, alongside improvements to inclusive mainstream provision, with investment in both new school buildings and staff training.
  3. Supporting local government Local authorities must be supported better to fund SEND services, including through:
    1. The extension of the profit cap in children’s social care to private SEND provision, where many of the same private equity backed companies are active, and
    2. National government funding to support any child whose assessed needs exceed a specific cost.
  4. Early identification and shorter waiting lists Early identification and intervention must be improved, with waiting times for diagnosis, support and therapies cut.
  5. Fair funding The SEND funding system must properly incentivise schools both to accept SEND pupils and to train their staff in best practice for integrated teaching and pastoral care. Our five principles for SEND reform – Liberal Democrats

These principles come from a motion debated at last year’s Party conference and represent a check list against which specific policies can be measured, such as increasing the supply of educational psychologists to deal with both the annual reviews and initial assessments of EHCPs.

If there is anything missing from the list, it is the role of the NHS, and specifically around mental health and education. This is the area of need where the system has really broken down. Many of the other issues are cost related due to inflation and more young people living longer as well as increased demands from an age range of support than can now reach up to the age of 25. The issue of mental health has swamped the system and the NHS must play a part in helping define what is needed.

With the main opposition at Westminster disinterested in the issues of education that are facing most families, the Lib Dems should be leading from the front. This letter should have been sent at least a week ago.

As my earlier posts of today have shown, the Lib Dems next education campaign can be around securing enough teachers for schools in our more deprived areas. Such a campaign can take on both labour councils and Reform voters to show there is a radical alternative in the Liberal democrats.

Education may not feature very high in polling about issue in elections, but on a day-to-day basis it isn’t far away from the conversations in many households. From mobile phone to AI, funding for school meals to citizenship, Liberal Democrats should be calling the government to account.  

Will the 6,500 new teachers be heading for schools in disadvantaged areas?

Posted on by
Reply

Increasing teacher numbers in disadvantaged areas and core subjects. I was very happy when I read this heading in today’s Public Account’s Committee report on ‘Increasing Teacher Numbers’. Increasing teacher numbers: Secondary and further education (HC 825)

However, when I turned to paragraphs 25-29, this section just seemed like an afterthought. How depressing was it to read that

‘Schools and further education colleges are responsible for deciding the staff they need and recruiting their own workforces. Local authorities employ teachers in maintained schools.’ Para 25

There is nothing factually incorrect in the statement, but although local authorities are the de jure employers of teachers in maintained schools, ever since the devolution of budgets in the 1990s, local authorities have had little to do with the hiring policies for teachers in these schools, and nothing to do with the academy sector.

The Committee did acknowledge that

‘Those schools with higher proportions of disadvantaged pupils tend to have higher turnover rates and less experienced teachers. This impacts the government’s mission of breaking down the barriers to opportunity and means disadvantaged children are at risk of being locked out from particular careers.’

Teachers in schools with higher proportions of disadvantaged pupils are also less experienced

‘In 2023–24, 34% of teachers in the most disadvantaged schools had up to five years’ experience (20% in the least disadvantaged schools).’

They cited the examples of computer science and physics

‘In the most disadvantaged areas, 31% of schools do not offer Computer Science A-level, compared to 11% of schools in the least disadvantaged areas, due to a lack of trained teachers. For Physics A-level, this is 9% compared to 1%.’

This will come as no surprise to regular readers of this blog. Here is the link to a post from the 21st July 2023, almost two years ago.

Free School Meals and teacher vacancies | John Howson

Thos who know my background will know that I started teaching in a school in a disadvantaged part of Tottenham in 1971, and this issue has been one that has concerned me throughout my career in education. I was, therefore, disappointed to read that

‘We asked the Department when we could expect there to be less variation between schools in the most and least disadvantaged areas, but it did not commit to a timeframe. Instead, it noted that its retention initiatives providing financial incentives were targeting schools and colleges with the highest proportion of disadvantaged students.’

This seems to me to be as close to a non-answer as one can expect. Indeed, looking in detail at the oral evidence session, this is an area where answers from the senior civil servants in my opinion suggested little hope, and not as much concern for the values implied in the questions that I would have liked to have heard. In reality, past experience tells me that it is falling rolls and fewer job opportunities that will propel teachers towards schools where they would otherwise not take a teaching post. Iti s the economy, not the DfE that will improve the life chances of children in those schools with a high proportion of disadvantaged children. This is at the same time as the lives of their parents may be worsened by unemployment and welfare cuts. It’s a funny old world.

SEND parents need support now

Posted on by
Reply

I have written three posts about SEND since I restarted this blog in May, on the override; EOTAs and more generally. As a result, I was going to sit out the present debate about what might happen in the autumn without making any further comments. However, I thought this paragraph by John Crace in the Guardian was the best summary I had seen about where we are one year into this government. Labour picks on kids as Farage reaches for his human punchbag

‘Now, Send is not perfect. The bill is getting bigger by the year, thanks both to better diagnosis and to some parents gaming the system. But it is essential for many children who benefit from education, health and care plans, and parents are worried sick they might lose out. In the absence of any clear direction from the Department for Education, many disability campaigners are fearing the worst. That children will be treated as cost centres to be downsized. That children diagnosed in the future won’t be entitled to the same benefits as children with the same level of disability are now. This one will now run and run well into the autumn.’

It is going to be a worrying summer for many parents, and that isn’t fair on them. I am all for looking at how the system is being gamed – see my blog about EOTAS – in some ways by a few parents, but most parents are genuinely worried. SEND is the only issue I ever saw a parent cry in a cabinet meeting when trying to prevent a reduction in the spending on transport. These parents have a heavy burden of love to bear, and the State should remember that.

However, the elephant in the room, and one John Crace doesn’t mention is the NHS. Afterall EHCPs replaced Statements of SEN Need. One big difference was the addition of the letter ‘H’ for health. So far, all the attention has been on local authorities, and the NHS rarely receives a mention.

Now I think that as soon as it is obvious that a child will need an EHCP, the NHS, whether maternity unit or GP surgery, should always start the process. It should not be left to a primary school headteacher to so often have to begin the process of applying for the EHCP.

At the same time, the NHS might want to look at early screening for conditions affecting early learning, and put in place a much stronger programme than at present.  

SEND is also an area of life where we need to be clear about what we want from the Early Years Sector. The sector has a part to play in early identification of issues in learning, and surely staff need better training to both observe and report these early learning issues. Much has been taken about the transfer from primary to secondary school, but hardly anything about the knowledge transfer into the school system from early years. Of course, where the school has a nursery class, transfer should be straightforward. But what of other children, and especially those that spend most of their early years in the care of relatives or live in isolated in rural areas?

The government seems to like leaks, so how about some positive leaks around SEND? The government must not go on holiday leaving these parents to suffer over the summer.  

Reform of Home to School Transport needed

Posted on by
Reply

This week the Local Government Association published an important report into home to school transport  The future of Home to School Transport: Report | Local Government Association This is an area of responsibility that always concerned me when I was a county councillor, as the rules of the governing eligibility were set in the 1944 Education Act, in a very different era to that of today.

As the LGA report noted:

“Effective home to school transport plays a vital role in our education system. Fundamentally, it is the safety-net that ensures no child or young person misses out on their entitlement to education because they cannot otherwise get to school. However, current home to transport duties were designed for a different age, societally, educationally and economically. For local government, continuing to fulfil the current statutory responsibilities for home to school transport is becoming increasingly financially unsustainable, posing a real threat of bankruptcy for some, and necessitating cuts to other vital aspects of children’s services provision in many more.”

Much of the report deals with SEND transport, as that costs local authorities the most money, the issue of whether the NHS should bear part of the cost. Sensibly the report concluded that this was a national issue:

“We would recommend that, in the context of budgetary pressures across public services and with health being under no less pressure than local government, this is not an issue that can be left to local negotiation to resolve. The Department for Education and the Department for Health and Social Care should clarify an equitable split of responsibilities, including financial responsibilities, for transport for children with the most common health needs that require substantial and additional support, and set that out in statutory guidance both for local authorities and ICBs.”

With the review of the NHS currently underway, this seems like a timely recommendation.

Surprisingly, the report seems in places to assume that parents must send their child to a state school, rather that state schools being the default position if a parent doesn’t make any other arrangement for their child’s education.  Fortunately, this assumption doesn’t affect their arguments.

I think their conclusions are sensible in both being clearer, with less change of challenge than at present, but the authors appear to have missed the opportunity to discuss how to deal with the issue of selective schools and distance. Making such schools ineligible for home to school transport as they are regarded as a parental choice is as discriminatory as any other criteria. It is a pity this wasn’t addressed more fully.

Nevertheless, I think I can agree with their conclusions for a system that:

“In summary, we are advocating that in future children and young people should be eligible for assistance with home to school travel from the start of reception to the end of year 13, based on a simple binary distance criterion: if they live more than 3 miles away (by the most direct road route) from their nearest suitable school then they would be eligible for transport assistance; if they live less than three miles away then they would not be eligible for transport assistance. This formulation of eligibility would get rid of the current link between eligibility and the ability to walk to school for both children and young people with SEND and those accessing mainstream home to school transport.”

150 year-old Committee system to be abolished

Posted on by
Reply

Earlier this week the government announced the end to Council Committees as a decision-making process within local government, requiring all councils to move to a Leader and Cabinet model.  Fortunately, scrutiny committees will still be permitted. Written statements – Written questions, answers and statements – UK Parliament

So, it will be a Labour government that will finally ends the governance of state education by Committee. For over a century, the Education Committee, comprised of councillors and other persons, usually representing the main faith groups with schools in the area and ‘persons with experience in education’ was the mainstay of policy-making for the nation’s state schools, and up to the early 1990s further and public sector higher education as well.

Indeed, my first appointment to a Council was to the Education Committee, as one of the persons of experience. In that role, I was appointed to Oxfordshire’s Education Committee, and one of its sub-committees in the 1990s. I served until the County moved to a Leader and Cabinet model at the end of the decade. Some 20 years after that original appointment, I became the Cabinet Member covering the education portfolio in the same county.

This move to ban committees is a curious one at the present time when so many councils do not have a majority for one Party, and are run by coalitions. Managing coalitions in the cabinet system makes it harder for each Party to have an input into all portfolios, except at the level of cabinet. I suspect it has made cabinet meetings longer when there are differences between the Parties within the Cabinet. The alternative is that difficult decisions are dropped, rather than dealt with.   

The cabinet model is also bad news for back bench councillors, especially where there is a large majority for one Party, because other than the scrutiny function, where they may sit as the occasional substitute, they will have little or no formal role in decision-making. The committee system did allow greater participation from councillors, even if it was slower at reaching decisions.

My guess is that even when formal committees are banned, unofficial groups will still be formed to help cabinet members. They may be Cabinet Committees; task and finish groups for particular projects or even unofficial committees such as the Corporate Parenting Panel of councillors from all Parties that was revived during my time as cabinet member.

The real tragedy of this move is that it represents a further nail in the coffin or local democracy. Committees meet in public for the most part, and that means there can be public input before a decision is made. The risk now is that decisions may be scrutinised after they have been made, but less so before being agreed.

One solution is to ensure that there is widespread consultation before decisions are made, as has just taken place in Oxfordshire on whether or not to charge for SEND transport for the 16-19 age group.

Councils are businesses, but not companies.  How they manage decision-making with their democratic responsibilities is no matter to be taken lightly. But a time of political turmoil is an odd time to mandate that only one system of governance is possible.

Solve the High Needs Block statutory override issue now

Posted on by
2

June is the time of year when local authority Directors of Finance start thinking about the budget for the following April. HM Treasury is doing the same thing for the government but, with a Spending Review just announced, their task this summer should be much easier than usual as Ministers have already negotiated with the Chancellor. Directors of Finance have no such protection and are bound to produce a balanced budget for councillors to approve or face the prospect of having to issue a s114 notice and default, as some councils have already had to do in recent years.

It was very surprising not to see an announcement in the recent Spending Review about the statutory override many upper tier councils are carrying on their balance sheets,

The statutory override on council balance sheets is a result of overspends on council’s High Needs Block spending that finances the pupils and young adults with special educational needs in their local area. (SEND)

There are suggestions that a significant number of upper tier authorities with be unable to present a balanced budget for 2026/27 to councillors next February for approval unless something is done about the present statutory override that currently ends in March 2026. If nothing else is put in place, some councils will not be able to present a balanced budget and hence will default.

The simple answer would be to extend the override until March 2027 to see what the White Paper on SEND, now promised for the autumn, will bring. That move just buys time for a longer-term solution.

I wonder whether the DfE thought local government re-organisation might be a way of dealing with the deficit when new councils were being formed. After the results of May’s elections, I cannot see the present government wanting to push ahead with reorganising councils and creating new elected Mayors if such a move were to hand more victories to their opponents, and notably to the Reform Party. If reorganisation grinds to a halt that route out is no longer available for solving the issue of the override.

Another alternative is to switch the 2% precept on Council Tax from adult social services to SEND and let the NHS take the strain on funding for the mostly elderly residents currently being paid for out of the local government funding 2% precept. Such a move would not be popular but could be possible. As it wasn’t in the Spending Review it seems unlikely.

The DfE could rearrange their spending and transfer the consequences of falling pupil numbers from the Schools Block to increase the High Needs Block and do the same for the Early Years funding to keep it constant on a per child basis but recognise fewer children means less total spending. Such a move would affect funding for schools and early years setting with falling rolls.

Do nothing and councillors in Parties running councils will return from their summer breaks to be confronted with a list of serious reductions in services and personnel that might be needed in 2026. Such reductions won’t be efficiency gains, but unacceptable cuts on the level of a fire sale.

Solving the problem of the statutory override between now and the parliamentary recess for the summer should be the number one priority for all involved with education and local government. Not to do so would have consequences that are unthinkable.

The situation regarding the statutory override should not have reached the present position. In my view, it would be a gigantic failure of political will if it is not solved now.

Mixed messages on teacher retention in latest data

Posted on by
Reply

How long do teachers stay in service? The DfE comment in their analysis of the latest data that Retention rates for teachers increased for both the newest teacher cohort who qualified in 2023 and for second year retention for those who qualified in 2022, while decreasing for most earlier cohorts compared to the equivalent measure last year.

Now after a period where retention rates have been declining that’s good news, and with the worsening general labour market and an older teacher workforce than in recent years, I expect retention rates to continue to improve over the next few years.

However, the improvement is something of a mixed blessing. Teachers with longer service tend to cost more, and if schools are funded for average salary costs, more schools will find the pay bill higher than the funding, especially as pupil numbers drop.

At the same time, higher retention rates mean fewer vacancies as rolls fall unless schools receive real increases in their funding that allows additional teachers to be recruited (the Spending Review will answer that question).

If past history is anything to go by, then different regions of the country will be affected differently. My guess is that retention rates will be lower in London and the Home Counties, and higher the further north and west you travel across England. This improvement in retention rates is bad news for job hunters, and also bad news for recruitment agencies that make their profits from schools advertising vacancies unless schools’ resort to only offering one-year contracts that are not then renewed.

Any reduction in job opportunities may also be bad news for teachers trying to return to work in the United Kingdom from abroad. Add in the decline in the number of pupils in private schools, some 11,000 in the latest data, when compared with the previous year’s data, and that might be somewhere around 750 less jobs in that sector in one year.

Although retention is better for the first two years of service in the latest data from the DfE, rates still have some way to go to return to levels of twenty years ago.

% in service after each year of service2003 entrantsLatestDifference
19189.7-1.3
28580.5-4.5
38173.2-7.8
47870.2-7.8
57667.6-8.4
67564.6-10.4
77362.5-10.5
87060.6-9.4
96859.2-8.8
106657-9

The table compares the latest data with the 2003 entry cohort survival rates for their first ten years of service. So, 66% of the 2003 cohort were still in teaching after ten years, but only 57% of the 2014 cohort were still in teaching after ten years.

The table shows an alarming difference for teachers with six to seven years of service, the group that might be expected to be taking on middle leadership positions. Hopefully, the new pay rise will be a further incentive to persuade teachers to to quit. Knowing why they do quit, and where they go, is some other data the DfE might wish to share with everyone.

6,500 more teachers: is Labour’s pledge dead in the water?

Posted on by
Reply

Last week, I wrote the following in this blog:

“The Spending Review also needs to come clean on what the pledge around the 6,500 extra teachers means, and how they will be paid for? The IFS makes the point that the college sector needs more than 6,500 extra lecturers to cope with the fact that rolls there won’t be falling over the next few years, and any added working in adult learning will put up the demand for lecturers even more. Switching funds to the college sector solves the issue of how to pay for these extra staff, but will leave the secondary sector with a pupil-teacher ratio in many areas little different to what it was 50 years ago. Hard times for schools ahead?” More thoughts on funding schools, ahead of the spending Review | John Howson

Will, we will know if it is hard times, status quo going forward or genuinely more cash for the school’s sector on Wednesday, when the waiting and teasing will finally be over.  

However, there appears to be news about the pledge to create an additional 6,500 teachers that formed part of Labour’s 2024 general election campaign. Labour said that they would:

Enable school staff to help our children to succeed

  • With over 6,500 more teachers in schools
  • All new teachers to be qualified
  • A new national voice for school support staff
  • A Teacher Training Entitlement for all our teachers
  • Everyone in our schools treated with the respect they deserve. Labour’s plan for schools – The Labour Party

According to the tes, and other sources, the pledge of 6,500 more teachers is dead in the water. Labour ‘abandons’ manifesto pledge to hire more teachers This follows the publication of the annual workforce data by the DfE showing that unsurprisingly showed that with falling rolls, the number of teachers in the primary school sector actual fell between November 2023 and November 2024. The primary school total of teachers dropped by about 2,900, while the number of secondary and special school teachers, as well as those working in pupil referral units, went up by about 2,350.

Now, Labour can argue that the November 2024 data was based upon the funding of schools under the previous Conservative government, and they would be correct. However, it would make the pledge even harder to achieve if it was assumed that the 6,500 additional teachers were to be added to the November 2023 total that was the latest figure at the time of the general election.

Creating more than 7,000 additional teaching posts was just never going to happen, especially as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out that there is a staffing crisis in the further education sector, and that’s where funding for any addiitonal staffing probably ought to be directed first.

Will Labour pull a rabbit out of the hat between now and Wednesday, after all it was VAT on private schools that was supposed to be used as hypothecated cash to fund the extra staff. We shall see what is announced.

And what of the other pledges? Will there be a new national voice for support staff already being told that they are less valuable that teachers by being awarded a lower pay increase: bad news for the beleaguered special school sector.