Tag Archives: academies

New Year Resolutions 2025 – still relevant?

Posted on by
Reply

In January 2025, I penned a list of suggested amendments to the Schools Bill going through parliament. Well, the Bill is still going, and we still don’t know the outcome for SEND. But what of my other suggestions – listed below? Some, such as reducing the number of MATs has recently gained credibility on platforms such as LinkedIn. The idea of on-line schools has also gained attention as their use by ‘home schoolers’ increases.

The other suggestions have not yet been taken u, although a Select Committee at Westminster did discuss home to school transport in their session yesterday.

I still stand by all these suggestions made in this press release.

Time for radical action

Long-time education campaigner and recruitment authority, John Howson, calls upon the government to be more radical in its approach to education and schools.

My suggestions included

Academies

Some serious amalgamations might reduce overhead costs.
Could each LA area have no more than 5 MATs (1 each for CoE; RC, special schools and 2 for all other primary and secondary schools).

How much would that save in salary costs of senior staff? Would this release cash for teaching and learning?

I also suggested a new on-line school for all children missing education because they don’t have a school place along with some other important changes. 

All pupils on a school roll

(i)            All young people not in school, and between the ages of 5 and 16, and not registered either as home educated young people or with a registered private provider on the list of DfE approved schools, must be registered with a maintained on-line school, 

Notes

As the DfE accredits on-line private provision it should be able to create a category of on-line maintained school. This would allow the education of all state-funded young people to be regulated and inspected. It would end the practice of EOTAS (education other than at school) prescribed by s61 of the 2014 Education Act.

It would also allow for children moving into an area mid-year to immediately be placed on the roll of this school pending placement in a mainstream or special school. Many pupils with EHCPs transferring mid-year cannot be allocated a place in a special school because there are insufficient places. This would allow for oversight of their education by the local authority pending a placement. In a local authority such as Oxfordshire, there may be as many as 200+ pupils waiting for a school place as the school-year progresses. 

This would also assist those children forced to free home at short notice due to domestic abuse. At present, they leave everything behind and it cannot be forwarded in case it reveals the location of the refuge or other accommodation. This on-line school would provide registration without revealing a location where pupil’s work could be forwarded and education continued until the situation was resolved.

Those children in years 10 and 11 offered a part-time place at an FE college where the school doesn’t consent that are currently transferred to elective home education to allow funding to be agreed could also be transferred to the roll of this school.

Free school transport extended to 18 to match ‘learning leaving age’.

(i)            In Schedule 35B of the 1996 education Act replace ‘of compulsory school age’ with ‘Eighteen’.

(ii)           The provision free transport for pupils beyond of compulsory school age and up to the end of the school year in which the child attains 18 will only apply where the child received free travel before the of the compulsory school age and remains at the same school.

(iii)          Where the school a child attended up to the end of the compulsory school age does not provide post-16 education, transport will be provided free to the nearest post-16 education provision operating under schools’ regulation or the nearest Sixth Form College operating under Further Education regulations.

(iv)          Where a child transfers to a college or other setting operating under Further Education regulations that is not a Sixth Form College, the college will have a duty to provide, either free transport or make other suitable arrangements in a situation where the young person would have met the conditions for free transport had they remained in the school they attended until the end of their compulsory school age, up to the end of the academic year where the child reaches the age of 18.

(v)           Within the boundary of the London boroughs, school transport will be the responsibility of Transport or London. In combined Authorities with a mayor, the provision of school transport may be either a local authority ort a mayoral function by agreement. Where there is no agreement, the local authority will be responsible for any transport.

(vi)          The responsible body, either a local authority or the mayor, must produce an annual home to school transport authority for the guidance of parents and other interested in the provision of home to school transport. 

Note

This clause is to bring the transport arrangements into line with the learning leaving age of 18

Ending of selective education being treated as parental choice for transport decisions

(i)                  Where a local authority or other body responsibly for state funded secondary school education between the ages of 11 and 18 requires the passing of some form of selection for admittance to a school, regardless of whether the section process is administered by the school, a local authority or any other body, then a child admitted to their nearest selective school, or the nearest school with an available place, will be eligible for free transport up to age 18 while they remain on roll of the school, if they are an eligible child within Schedule 35B of the 1996 education Act.

Note

This clause prevents Kent and other LA with selective schools from regarding selective schools as a parental choice and, as a consequence, not providing free transport to children living more than 3 miles from the selective school.

Provision of sufficient teacher numbers in all subjects and all areas.

(i)                  Local authorities are encouraged to work with multi-academy trusts, dioceses and other promoters of schools to ensure a sufficient supply of suitable qualified teachers to ensure the delivery of the curriculum in such schools.

(ii)                Where no other provision exists, local authorities may establish and operate initial teacher training provision, as an approved provider by the Department for Education.

(iii)               Local authorities will produce an annual report to Council on the adequacy of staffing of schools within the authority.

(iv)               It shall be the duty of schools to cooperate with the local authority in providing such information as required by the local authority for the production of an annual report on the staffing of schools within the authority.

Note

With increasing teacher shortages, it is necessary to ensure a sufficient number of teachers at a local level. This clause provides for local authorities to offer initial teacher education where insufficient places are available locally in some or all phases and subjects taught by schools.

Removal of right for MATs to ‘pool’ balances of schools within the MAT in annual accounts

(i)                  When presenting their annual accounts, a mutli-academy trust must show the balances for each individual school in the account and must not ‘pool’ reserves into a single figure for the trust.

(ii)                The DfE shall publish each year a list of the salaries of all staff in academies and academy trusts earning more than £100,000 alongside the salary of the DCS for the same area where the academy or MAT are located. 

Note

This clause seeks to ensure that funds allocated to schools are spent at that school and not transferred to another school, and especially not to be used by schools in different local authority areas. The second part requires the DfE to collate information that is in MAT or academy annual accounts. but DfE should provide the data as part of their statistical information to the sector.

Schools Forum

(i)            The Cabinet Member or Committee Chair in a Committee system of local government responsible for supporting schools with the DSG and for the central block shall be a voting member of the Schools Forum. No substitute shall be allowed.

Note

This put the LA representative with control of EYFS and HNB funding on the same level of engagements as schools and others in respect of membership of a schools forum and end the anomaly of being permitted to be a member, but not to vote.

Are headteachers really staying less time in post?

Posted on by
Reply

As someone that started collecting data about the turnover of head teachers way back in the 1980s, and added deputy headteacher posts in the 1990s, and when the Assistant head grade was created added those to my dataset, the latest research from the DfE on leadership turnover is very welcome. School Leadership retention, Reporting year 2024 – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK

However, it comes with a health warning. The methodology section contains the following

Exploratory analysis of Teacher Pension Scheme (TPS ….. suggests that the number of head teachers still in service but not being reported in the School Workforce Census has been increasing in recent years, substantially impacting the trends seen in this release. School Leadership retention: methodology – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK

This warning needs to be borne in mind when considering the trends of length of service in post. The DfE data also excluded headteachers on a temporary contract, and those over 50 where retirement is likely to be their next career move.

On the face of it headteachers are spending less time in post.

Primary
Year of CensusBase% 1 Year% 5 year
201197493.7%78.8%
2012107592.4%77.0%
2013117791.1%76.4%
2014130290.2%73.3%
2015131190.5%74.4%
2016134989.6%73.9%
2017140487.8%71.6%
2018126288.3%70.0%
2019121990.2%70.0%
202096689.2%z
2021111489.2%z
2022141488.9%z
2023127389.7%z
20241199zz

Primary head teachers in post one year after appointment seem to be around 4% less for those appointed in 2023 compared with the class of 2011. After five years, there is around an 8% decline from nearly 79% to 70%, although we have yet to see the effect of covid on turnover.

Secondary 
Year of CensusBase% 1 Year% 5 year
201124091.2%65.0%
201228991.0%64.7%
201332787.2%62.1%
201437885.4%61,4%
201538486.7%62.0%
201643084.7%60.5%
201743784.9%63.6%
201844085.0%60.2%
201942187.6%62.5%
202031790.2%z
202132983.9%z
202240484.9%z
202341685.6%z
2024419zz

For the secondary sector, turnover after one year has increased by nearly six per cent, and by around 5% after five years. In this respect, secondary teacher seems more likely to stay in post longer.

This is not surprising, as an appointment to a secondary headship historically was less likely to lead to another appointment, whereas in the primary sector many heads were first appointed to a small school and then took a subsequent headship in a larger school.

However, the defining feature of the period under discussion is the transfer of a large number of schools from maintained school status to becoming an academy. The next decade will help explain where that period of change was a temporary change in turnover rates or the creation of a new landscape where headteachers move more frequently.

The DfE research also has analysis on whether headteachers remain in any posts in a school within the sector. Again, secondary heads are more likely, (as retirements are excluded), to remain in a secondary school, whereas primary teachers are now less likely than in 2011 to remain in a school. It would be interesting to know where those teachers are now employed, and whether they are still working in education.

No doubt the pressure on the primary sector has been harder for heads to deal with than for their secondary colleagues since many primary schools do not have the same range of support staff as their secondary colleagues. Many more may have also had to content with the outcomes of an ofsted visit.  

This is a useful dataset, but it should be made more comprehensive by ensuing all MATs complete the School Workforce Census and that new categories of posts, such as Executive Headteacher, are captured within the census.

Admissions matter: vulnerable children must not be refused schooling

Posted on by
Reply

SchoolsWeek has published an interesting report on admissions policies by schools. Shut out: How schools are turning away vulnerable pupils

As regular readers know, this issue has troubled me ever since I became a county councillor in 2012.

I have reproduced my previous blog post about the topic from 2021 below.

While I was a cabinet member in Oxfordshire, up until May this year, I asked officers to look into a virtual school to admit every child without a school, and not being home educated, and ensure there was some daily learning interaction with each child. Why successive governments have ignored the issue, and oppositions haven’t pressed them about it is one of my great disappointments.

It was therefore welcome, when last November, after I challenged the Minister at the ADCS conference about ensuring local authorities had power over all in-year admissions whether to maintained schools or academies to see the clause in the Bill. This is a good first step.

We all need to fight for the most vulnerable in society, and all involved in education have a special duty to do so. Children only get one change at schooling: we need to ensure it available to them

 Time for Jacob’s Law

Posted on January 23, 2021

The naming of a young person in Serious Case Review Report is rare. But this week the Report into the death of Jacob in Oxfordshire contained his name. The family gave permission, and hope it will ensure the report is more widely read and acted upon. If so, it is a brave decision, and one that I applaud.

You can read the Report at https://www.oscb.org.uk/oscb-publishes-a-child-safeguarding-practice-review-concerning-jacob/ Full report link at bottom of the press notice

Three agencies, the Police, Children’s Social Services and Education have learning points to take from the Review. In this blog, I will concentrate on the education aspects, as they contain a message heard before on this blog.

Jacob was born in Oxfordshire, later moved to Northumbria, where I suspect he was educated in a First School, and then a Middle School, before being moved in Year 6 to an ‘alternative education provision’ – presumably a PRU?

In July 2017, note the date, the family returned to Oxfordshire. The Report concludes that:

5.1 He was not on roll at any education provision and was a child missing education for 22 months

Jacob’s mandatory need for education was not provided by Oxfordshire County Council when he lived at home and when he was in the care of the local authority both in and when out of county for 5 months. Four educational settings were asked to take Jacob on roll, however largely due to his perceived behaviours and risks to other students he remained off roll for almost 2 years. Jacob’s family were offered the right of appeal when places were refused. His situation was considered by education panels such as the In Year Fair Access Panel and Children Missing Education to little effect and his needs were overseen and monitored by various professionals, including the Virtual School and the Independent Reviewing Officer Service whilst in local authority care. There were no formal dispute resolutions raised14 by Children’s Social Care and his situation was not escalated to the Education Skills and Funding Agency (ESFA) as it should have been.

Had this been an isolated case then this would be understandable, but a month before Jacob arrived back in Oxfordshire I had had an exchange in public with the Cabinet Member for Education at the June 2017 Cabinet meeting of the County Council. Not all questions are for political gain, and this was one where I genuinely thought that there was an issue to be addressed. The question asked:

Oxfordshire county council CABINET – 20 JUNE 2017 ITEM 4 – QUESTIONS FROM COUNTY COUNCILLORS

Question from Councillor Howson to Councillors Harrod and Hibbert-Biles “How many children taken into care over the past three school years and placed ‘out county’ have had to wait for more than two weeks to be taken onto the roll of a school in the area where they have been moved to and what is the longest period of time a child has waited for a place at a school in the area where they have been re-located to during this period?” 

As you will see, I asked both the Education Cabinet Member and Cllr Harrod for Children’s Social Services and received this answer:

Answer Over the past three years it has been exceptional for a Looked After Child to be taken onto the roll of an out of county school in under two weeks. Indeed, of the nine cases of primary age pupils we’ve looked at, the quickest a pupil was placed was 12 days (there were two) and the slowest was 77 days. For the 22 secondary age pupils the picture is even worse, with 3 weeks the quickest placement and a couple taking fully 6 months to get some of our most vulnerable young people into a stable school setting.

The main reason for this completely unacceptable state of affairs is that the Council has no power to direct an academy to admit a Looked After Child. The only way we can force an academy’s hand is to get a direction from the Educations & Skills Funding Agency and this, as you can see from the foregoing times, can be a very long-winded bureaucratic process.

The fact that it takes so long for academies to admit our Looked After Children shows how doggedly our officers pursue the matter; I suspect that many other local authorities simply give up when they meet an intransigent academy that doesn’t want to take responsibility for educating their vulnerable young people.

The minutes of the meeting note my supplementary question and the response as:

Supplementary: In response to an invitation from Councillor Howson for the Cabinet Member to work with Councillor Howson and the labour opposition to see what could be done Councillor Hibbert-Biles recognised that it was a national situation, and she would be asking for a meeting with local MPs and relevant minister.

How distressing to read the national recommendation in the Serious Case Review that:

Recommendation 2: This Review asks the Department for Education to acknowledge the education key learning and findings from Jacob’s Review and provide feedback as to the effectiveness of the Education and Skills Funding Agency process in resolving issues in a timely manner. The Review asks the Department of Education to provide statute and guidance to local areas and their communities on how to manage the Governance arrangements with academy run schools and local education departments who currently cannot be mandated to accept children on roll.

And in the local recommendations that:

Action Plan 2: The Education System

The key learning set out below is fully addressed in this action plan for children in the education system in Oxfordshire, overseen by the Chair of the OSCB Safeguarding in Education Sub-Group Key Learning:

An education system that ensures:

1. The paramount importance of the role of schools in keeping children safe

2. An education package is put in place in a timely manner for those children who may show challenging behaviours

3. Those children missing education are known and action is swift

This Action Plan should pay particular attention to ensuring: – Restorative work to resolve the fragmented arrangements between academy schools, alternative provisions and the local authority to ensure collective ownership – Policy and procedures to track when children are not on roll – The function of Education Panels in Oxfordshire (In Year Fair Access and Children Missing Education) – The local application of the Education Skills Funding Agency intervention – Education packages for children who may be at risk of exploitation and also present a risk to others.

For those that read the whole Report, there is further evidence on page 31 and footnote 56 of other issues about school admissions around the same time.

Here’s what I wrote on this blog on the 23rd June 2017:

In my post on 11th June, after the outcome of the general election was known, I suggested some issues that could still be addressed by a government without an overall majority. First among these was the issue of school places for young people taken into care and placed outside of the local authority. They have no guarantee of access to a new school within any given time frame at present. It seemed to me daft that a parent could be fined for taking a child out of school for two weeks to go on holiday but a local authority could wait six months for a school place to be provided for a young person taken into care.

The Cabinet Question reproduced above then appears followed by:

I found the answer deeply depressing. However, the good news is that MPs from the three political parties representing Oxfordshire constituencies have agreed to work together to take the matter forward. Thank you to MPs, Victoria Prentice, Layla Moran and Anneliese Dodds, for agreeing to seek action to remedy this state of affairs.

If readers have data about the issue elsewhere in England, I would be delighted to hear from you, so pressure can be put on officials nationally to ensure a rapid change in the rules.

I had forgotten that unique letter signed by every Oxfordshire MP after I had made my suggestion.

Nothing happened. Jacob died. We cannot wait any longer.

The DfE must act now to ensure all children have a school place within a specified time frame, whether they move to a new area or are excluded by a school. There must be a register of unplaced children of school age that is regularly reviewed by a senior officer and a politician in each local authority, and Ofsted should update the Secretary of State each year about the national picture.

It is time for a Jacob’s Law. His death will not then have been for nothing.

Read more on this BBC Report into the case https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-55841644

Does where you study make a difference to ‘A’ Level outcomes?

Posted on by
Reply

Next week, pupils will receive their GCSE results and will then have to decide where to continue their studies. If they are intending to take ‘A’ levels, then the options may be between staying on at the same school or transferring either to another school or to an institution run under further education rules such as either a general further education college or a Sixth Form College, where they exist.

As the tables for this years’ results by type of institution shows, there are different percentage in terms of outcomes.

Centre typeYearPercentage of results at grade A and abovePercentage of results at grade C and above
Independent school including city training colleges (CTCs)202548.40%89.70%
Secondary selective school202543.70%88.20%
Free schools202531.30%80.60%
All state-funded202525.20%76.30%
Sixth form college202524.00%76.20%
Academies202523.10%75.00%
Secondary comprehensive or middle school202522.60%75.20%
Other202516.40%55.80%
Secondary modern school/high school202516.30%64.80%
Further education establishment202514.40%66.30%

Young people across England celebrate exam results – GOV.UK

I don’t think anyone would be surprised to see independent schools with the highest percentage of results at A*-A. But it is important to understand what the policy about entering candidates for the examination is when considering outcomes. Is anyone taking the subject entered or is there a bar to be achieved at ‘mock’ exam time to be allowed to enter.

These results also cannot identify any time candidates spent either on tutoring during the course or cramming during the Easer break before the actual examinations.

I am not sure whether the institutions classified as ‘City Training Colleges’ are actually ‘City Technology Colleges’. If so, it is not clear where UTCs and Studio Schools have been located? Possibly, along with the academies group or do they make up the ‘other group’ and does ‘other’ include special schools.  Why Free Schools merit a separate line under a Labour government is an interesting question.

It is also not clear whether the further education establishments (not Sixth Form Colleges) include entries from adults as well as those that would be in Year 13 if at a school? Certainly, anyone thinking of doing ‘A’ levels at a college might want to ask about the grades achieved by students at the college. The eight per cent gap to a comprehensive school for those gaining the top grades in a further education establishment and the nearly nine per cent gap for Grade C and above merits questions if faced with the choice. However, an earlier post noted, there are differences in the percentage of candidates achieving top grades between different subjects, and that may well be a factor in the outcomes.

This year, boys outperformed girls for the first time since 2018. There have also been different rates of improvement when comparing percentages achieving the top grades by type of institution. Without knowing what types of institution are classified as ‘other’ it is difficult to account for the decline in outcomes for the top grades for these schools.

Provider% difference 2025 on 2023
Free schools4
Secondary modern school/high school2.7
Secondary selective school2.3
Independent school including city training colleges (CTCs)1.9
All state-funded1.7
Academies1.6
Sixth form college1.5
Secondary comprehensive1.3
Further education establishment0.7
Other-2.3

It would also be integrating to compare the different types of intuitions by their outcomes by region.

The Spending Review and savings

Posted on by
Reply

Next week will set the direction for government spending over the rest of this parliament. Although education is a ‘protected’ department that may not mean as much now as it did last year at the time of the general election.

Changes in the geopolitical situation, and an economy where the green shoots are barely peeking through the surface, and could be killed off by the equivalent of one night of freezing temperatures doesn’t bode well for the education sector. This is especially the case when set against falling school rolls and the crisis in the higher education sector. The skills sector might be the one bright spot, and it wouldn’t surprise me if that is where most of the investment will be directed.

The present government is lucky in that the weakening job market means recruiting new teachers will be easier, and the pressure for pay rises might also abate if the choice is more pay for some and redundancies for others. Unions would, in my view, be wise to tackle conditions of service rather than majoring on pay rises and the risk of confrontation with a government that has been generous so far, but might not want to see the limits of that generosity tested.

So, might there be saving to be made?

If there are school closures, will this allow the most expensive and inefficient buildings to be removed from the estate. Why spend time taking out asbestos, if you can just close the school? How would such a policy be managed? Frankly, I have no idea, but to let market forces prevail might have an unnecessary cost attached. So parental choice or rational use of buildings?

And then there is the muddle of academies and the maintained sector.

I looked at the accounts for the period up to August last summer for the 30 single academies and Multi Academy Trusts with schools in one local authority area. The total pay bill for their single highest paid employee came to around £4 million pounds. Now, take out of that total the Trusts where the headteacher is the single highest paid employee, and the total might be around £2 million. Cut this to just five trusts: one each for the two main Christian Churches (CofE and RC) and one each for other primary, secondary and special schools and what might be the savings?

Then there is the audit, legal and professional fees. I doubt whether the private sector charges the same rate as local authorities do to maintained schools. Perhaps academies should be required to employ local authority services, if the quote is lower than that from the private sector?

SEND is the other area where spending needs reviewing. For many, the cost of an EHCP started early in the primary sector should be the first point of focus. Are there differences between schools in different locations, and if so, then why? Can an early diagnosis save costs.

What of Education Other than at School packages? How much are they costing the system, and why are they necessary in such a growing number of cases?

With 150 plus local authorities, how much might be saved from present budgets in order to support investment in teaching and learning in the new world created by the latest technological revolution?

RAAC and asbestos: threats to school buildings

Posted on by
2

The interview that former Permanent Secretary at the DfE, Jonathan Slater gave to the BBC’s today programme this morning was both revealing and disturbing. Replacing school buildings rather than providing new schools to meet ‘rooves over heads’, where pupils don’t have a school, has long been the policy of the DfE and its predecessors.

Mr Slater’s revelation of the role of HM Treasury in funding school buildings should not come as a surprise, since the DfE doesn’t have income to pay for education, it is always reliant upon the Chancelor and the team at the Treasury and their policies.

The past decade has seen an upswing in the pupil population, so it is not surprising that new schools for new housing estates and other areas of substantial population growth have headed the school building list, leaving little cash for replacement schools, especially where developers can be persuaded to pay for the new school through the planning procedures.  

As Mr Stalter said, the determination to push through the Free Schools policy may also have reduced interest on the part of Ministers in rebuilding our maintained schools, as that task didn’t fit the political narrative of the day.  Interestingly, the capital expenditure brief currently lies with the DfE’s Minister in the house of Lords, Baroness Barran. Perhaps this shows where the thinking about the importance of capital investment lies in the pecking order within the DfE?

In 2017 the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) conducted an inquiry into school building. Here is an extract from their published report

2Condition of school buildings

The state of the estate

19.Between 2012 and 2014 the Department for Education (the Department) carried out a property data survey to examine the condition of school buildings. Based on the survey, the Department estimated that it would cost £6.7 billion to return all school buildings to satisfactory or better condition, and a further £7.1 billion to bring parts of school buildings from satisfactory to good condition.37 Common defects include problems with electrics and external walls, windows and doors. The survey was limited to assessing the condition of buildings and did not assess their safety or suitability.38

20.Some 60% of the school estate was built before 1976.39 The Chairman of EBDOG noted that ‘“system” buildings (a method of construction that uses prefabricated components) from this period were definitely coming to the end of their useful lives.40 The Department said that it had some concerns about these types of school buildings and so had started “destructive testing” as it knocked down buildings to assess how much life similar buildings had left.41 It expects that the cost of dealing with major defects will double between 2015–16 and 2020–21, even with current levels of investment, as many buildings near the end of their useful lives.42 The Chairman of EBDOG illustrated the scale of the challenge by telling us that his own local authority, Hampshire, needed £370 million to repair its school buildings but received only £18 million from the Department each year.43 (indication of references numbers retained)  Capital funding for schools – Committee of Public Accounts – House of Commons (parliament.uk)

Here were two of the PAC recommendations:

Recommendation: The Department should set out a plan by December 2017 for how it will fill gaps in its knowledge about the school estate in areas not covered by the property data survey. Specifically it needs to understand the prevalence, condition and management of asbestos, and know more about the general suitability and safety of school buildings.

Recommendation: The Department should use information, including from the property data survey, to develop a robust approach for holding local authorities and academy trusts to account for maintaining their school buildings, including how it will intervene if they are not doing so effectively. It should also assess whether schools can afford the level of maintenance necessary given the real-terms reductions in funding per pupil.

At that time, it was asbestos in school buildings that was the main concern, and possibly still should be in terms of how widespread the issue in schools might be. However, it would be interesting to know whether RAAC concrete was included in the ‘destructive testing’ mentioned in paragraph 19 of the PAC’s report?

Perhaps more should have been done to follow up the Department’s progress on school building replacement through the scrutiny process, especially with the warning that ‘many buildings near the end of their useful lives’. Should this have produced a Red RAG rating somewhere on a risk register?

In July 2023, the PAC started an inquiry into school buildings. The responses to Questions 6-9 from the current Permanent Secretary at the DfE are worth a look for what was said about RAAC. committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/13508/pdf/ However, even in that session asbestos as an issue seemed to be regarded are more of a concern than RAAC by many. Is that still a ticking time bomb waiting to explode?

This blog has celebrated that period between 1968-1972, when the then Ministry had a plan to replace pre-1906 primary schools. Many are still in use, and with the concerns about RAAC and asbestos seem likely to head towards their second century serving the nation’s children in many places.

One law for parents …

Posted on by
Reply

‘School sends children home because of a lack of staff’. The BBC have been running a story about a special school, part of a multi-academy trust that has been sending children home on certain days because of a lack of staff. Oxford pupils miss school amid special needs staff shortage – BBC News

The shortage of staff in the special school sector is nothing new. Indeed, I commented upon the use of unqualified teachers in that sector in a previous post. However, should any school be allowed to send pupils home because of staff shortages?

In 2017, (how time flies) the Supreme Court discussed the responsibilities of parents that contract with the State to provide schooling for their children for free. The case was Isle of Wight Council v Platt and the judgement can be read at Isle of Wight Council (Appellant) v Platt (Respondent) (supremecourt.uk)

The highest court in the land imposed a heavy burden on parents with regard to school attendance – paragraphs 31 onwards set out their reasons for doing so. In reaching their judgement, the court went further than the previous decision made in the 1930s, and placed even more restrictive reasons for parents being allowed not to send a child to school.

The court did not consider the opposite scenario of the responsibility of the State to parents that trust their child to the State to educate.  Lord Denning did discuss this in Meade v Haringey in 1979 at the end of the Winter of Discontent, but that case never came to trial as the strike ended and schools re-opened.  

Lord Denning’s comments in the case can be read at Meade v Haringey London Borough Council – Case Law – VLEX 793965949 The paragraph relevant to the present situation is in paragraph 3.

As I read the statute, it was and is the duty of the Borough Council – not only to provide the school buildings – but also to provide the teachers and other staff to run the schools – and furthermore to keep the schools open at all proper times for the education of the children. If the Borough Council were to order the schools to close for a term – or for a half-term – or even for one week, without just cause or excuse, it would be a breach of their statutory duty. If any of the teachers should refuse to do their work, the Borough Council ought to get others to replace them – and not pay the defaulters. Likewise if the caretakers refuse to open the schools – and keep the keys – the Borough Council ought to demand the return of the keys and open up the schools themselves if need be. For this simple reason: It is the statutory duty of the Borough Council to keep the schools open. If they should fail to do so, without just cause or excuse, it is a breach of their statutory duty.

These days, one must assume that either mutli-academy trust trustees have assumed the responsibilities formerly with local authorities in 1979 or that Regional School Commissioners acting on behalf of the DfE have responsibility for academies under their remit. Whoever is responsible, unless either a court rules otherwise or the law has been changed since 1979, it would seem that there is a statutory duty to open schools, and by implication to staff them during a school term. Of course, fire, plague or pestilence might cause temporary closure, but, as during the covid pandemic, schools were required to stay open for certain children.  

I guess that a parent will need to bring either a judicial review or a case against a school that sent children home. Judicial Review is an expensive process, so perhaps a Council, acting as a corporate parent, could bring the case on behalf of all parents.

It would be interesting to see how the Supreme Court balanced the rights and responsibilities of parents with the duties of the State in providing education. I am reminded that in the late 1940s the then Minister of Education summoned a Council because a school lacking a hall after bomb damage was not offering a daily act of corporate worship. What might that Labour Minister have made of schools sending children home due to staff shortages?

Why do some schools suspend more pupils than other schools?

Posted on by
Reply

The levelling up debate seems to have somewhat been overshadowed recently by the concerns about Ofsted, and the issues with worker’s pay and conditions. However, the problem of how to increase success rates for some schools hasn’t disappeared.

As I have written before on this blog, the lack of any local ability to intervene in the absence of government funding stream for levelling up, means that improvements are often haphazard, if they even happen at all. Academy chains could shunt pupils out of their schools, and leave others to cope, and failing schools have limited support outside of opportunity Areas or other places with special funding.

For a long period of time, part of Oxford city – that city of dreaming spires – has been divided into two; the generally, affluenct and successful North and West of the city, and less well-off south and east, as the ONS data from the 2021 starkly reveals. Not so much a case of the wrong side of the tracks, but the wrong side of the river Cherwell – not, note, the river Thames.

As a result, it is perhaps not much of a surprise to find that two of the state-funded secondary schools within the city – both located in the south of the city – have places in the top 200 secondary schools by the rate of suspensions during the Spring term of 2021/22 school-year. Fortunately, neither is in the top 100 schools, and for both they are probably faring better than they were a few years ago.

This an issue that the government’s Social Mobility Commission Social Mobility Commission Quarterly Commentary: March 2023 – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) might wish to explore in some detail.

Five of the 20 local authorities with the most schools in the top 200 secondary schools are authorities with selective secondary schools. One is a south coast unitary with a disproportionately large number of its non-selective schools in the list of the top 200 schools. Like Oxfordshire, it is an authority unlikely to attract extra funding for its schools under levelling-up, but there must be an issue to explore as to why so many of its schools are in this list?

A few years ago, University Technical Colleges used to feature strongly in this type of list, but closures and presumably some better understanding of transfer at fourteen has reduced their number to four, two of them being the only schools in their authority in the list.

The extent to which feeder primary schools for these 200 schools also feature in the list would be an interesting exercise to undertake. Also, it might be interesting to ask why one county has only one school in the list, whereas an adjacent unitary has three schools?

There is something of a north-south divide in the list and relatively few schools in London are in the list: an interesting turnaround from the last century, when I am sure that there would have been more of the capital’s secondary schools in the list. No doubt, the strength of some of the academy chains located in the capital has made a difference.

Do means matter?

Posted on by
Reply

The DfE has published some performance data for academies and multi academy trusts Multi-academy trust performance measures (key stages 2, 4 and 5) – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) The outcomes are quite rightly heavily hedged about with qualifications about how schools have become academies, and also that schools differ in size, character and parental choice. Indeed, I wonder whether the original reason for why a school became an academy, perhaps more than a decade ago is still relevant?

What struck me at first glance was that as the secondary sector becomes dominated by academies there is a reduction to the mean (average). Various Secretaries of State have wanted all schools to be above average, as this exchange with Michael Gove when in front of the Education Select Committee revealed. Michael Gove’s Kafkaesque logic – Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK’s progressive debate However, I don’t think he was the only Secretary of State to fall foul of this aspiration. Academies in the group forced to change their status because of under-performance not surprisingly do less well than those that chose to become an academy.

The key question for the current Secretary of State must be what do you take from this data in terms of the ‘levelling up’ agenda? I don’t think the present incumbent of the post of Secretary of State for Education has been asked the question about averages, but that shouldn’t stop her asking the question about what policy changes are needed based upon these outcomes?

As an additional discussion point, the secretary of State might like to ask her officials two further questions. What is the relationship between the schools in these tables and the percentages of NEETs produced by different types of schools, and how can schooling work to help ensure as many as possible of our young people eventually enter the labour market at the end of their initial education and training journey? After all, we should all be life-long learners.

After last year’s aborted attempt to make all schools academies, and the mauling of the Bill in the House of Lords there is still a need to ensure the middle tier works to the best advantage for all children. Whether there is a role for local democracy in schooling is still a live issue, but not one that will feature highly at the next election.

But, regardless of who runs schools, there is still work to be done to achieve excellence for all and that no child is left behind, to quote just two aspirational messages from past attempts at improving the outcomes for our schooling system.

Of course, without sufficient teachers, the risk is of deterioration not improvement in outcomes; not what the Chancellor wants to see if the economy is to continue to grow.