Tag Archives: DfE

Another Greenwich Judgement avoided

Posted on by
Reply

Greenwich in South East London already features in education law history for the ‘Greenwich Judgement’ on school choice. Today, it seemingly avoided the possibly of creating a second precedent by accepting that it would not be in the interest of local people to spend money defending any legal action by the DfE on closing schools.

As usual, there are pros and cons to both the Council’s position and that of the government at Westminster. What is lacking is a clear understanding of guidelines that fit a changing set of circumstances. The BBC’s World at One programme interviewed the Leader of Basildon Council – a Tory – where several schools are closed because of very high rates of infection. He defended that situation.

Generally, opinion is that education is a ‘good thing’ and leaving parents to arrange childcare at short notice can cause problems that should be avoided if at all possible. All the current issues were foreseeable, and the present situation demonstrates the lack of cooperative planning that is the hallmark of the present administration, and might yet be its downfall.

The issues are the same, where infection leads to transmission to higher risks groups from lower risks groups there is a danger, but within lower risks groups it is less of an issue. This appears to be the case with university students that remain in a group and don’t interact with the wider community. Schools are different, by their very community nature.

Low income, multi-generational households, especially in the non-White community, remain at very high risk from the pandemic and it is understandable that schools can play a part in the chain of transmission. But low income families have less space for on-line learning even if they have access to the technology.

So, no easy answer. But a set of criteria

Local public health officials can assess the trends and liaise with schools and education officers. Where more than a certain level of infections are present, local officials should notify the DfE of intending closure of a group of schools and provide the evidence in the same as a single school would use and there shouldn’t be an issue.

Where it becomes complicated is the notion of a ‘preventative closure’ to try to stop a spike happening. Surely, by now, we have enough evidence to set some criteria for where it is appropriate to close schools, and where it is better to keep them open?

Even with the vaccination programme, it seems likely that next term is going to be a challenging one for schools, their pupils and for parents. The clearer the agreed guidelines the better.

ICO still monitoring the DfE

Posted on by
Reply

The update issued by the Office of the Information Commissioner on their compulsory audit of the DfE passed me by when it appeared in October this year. https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-blogs/2020/10/statement-on-the-outcome-of-the-ico-s-compulsory-audit-of-the-department-for-education/ The executive summary of the original audit report had appeared in February 2020 and didn’t read like a ‘good news’ story for the Department.

It is good to know that the ICO is able to state in October that throughout the audit process the DfE engaged with the ICO and showed a willingness to learn from and address the issues identified and that the Department accepted all the audit recommendations and is making the necessary changes.

However, it appears that the ICO continues to monitor the DfE, reviewing improvements against pre agreed timescales and that the ICO warns that enforcement action will follow if progress falls behind the schedule.

The ICO carried out the compulsory audit following complaints received in 2019 regarding the National Pupil Database.

According to the Executive Summary in the Report, an Assessment Notice was issued to the Department for Education (DfE) on 19 December 2019. The audit field work was undertaken between 24 February and 4 March [sic]. The full report doesn’t seem to be available on the ICO website.

As with Ofsted inspections, key areas for improvement are identified for the DfE to consider and if necessary act upon. These included but were not limited to;

  • There is no formal proactive oversight of any function of information governance, including data protection, records management, risk management, data sharing and information security within the DfE which along with a lack of formal documentation means the DfE cannot demonstrate accountability to the GDPR. Although the Data Directorate have been assigned overall responsibility for compliance actual operational responsibility is fragmented throughout all groups, directorates, divisions and teams which implement policy services and projects involving personal data. Limited reporting lines, monitoring activity and reporting means there is no central oversight of data processing activities. As a result there are no controls in place to provide assurance that all personal data processing activities are carried out in line with legislative requirements.
  • Internal cultural barriers and attitudes are preventing the DfE from implementing an effective system of information governance, which properly considers the rights and freedoms of data subjects against their own requirements for processing personal data to ensure data is processed in line with the principles of the GDPR.
  • The Commercial department do not have appropriate controls in place to protect personal data being processed on behalf of the DfE by data processors. Which means there is no assurance that it is being processed in line with statutory requirements particularly where processing contracts are of low enough value to not be subject to formal procurement procedures. Processor and third party due diligence does not always consider whether appropriate organisational and security measures are in place to provide the DfE with assurance that personal data will be processed in line with statutory requirements.
  • There is an over reliance on using public task as the lawful basis for sharing which is not always appropriate and supported by identified legislation. Legitimate interest has also been used as a lawful basis in some applications however there is limited understanding of the requirements of legitimate interest and to assess the application and legalities of it prior to sharing taking place how it should be applied to ensure the use of this lawful basis is appropriate and considers the requirements set out in Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR.

In all, 15 areas for improvement were listed in the report. This is both a comprehensive and very depressing list. No doubt since February, and despite the covid-19 concerns that have taken up the time of the Department, procedures have been tightened up. Perhaps this is behind the nature of some of the data requests regarding the monitoring of the pandemic in schools.

Unlike Ofsted, the ICO doesn’t award grades to its audits. Without sight of the whole report it would be invidious to offer a suggested grade of the ofsted type, but it clearly wasn’t a ‘clean bill of health’ for the DfE.

Thank a Teacher or perhaps not?

Posted on by
Reply

When is a holiday for teachers not a holiday? Perhaps when announced by a government Minister. In my book, an in-service day is not a holiday. The Schools Minister’s announcement of an extra day before Christmas to allow teachers to have a “proper break” from working with test and trace to identify Covid cases doesn’t seem like a real holiday to me. More of a political announcement where a Minister hopes that nobody will read beyond the headline.

Apparently Mr Gibb told the Education Select Committee earlier this week that: “We are about to announce that ‘inset days’ can be used on Friday December 18, even if an inset day had not been originally scheduled for that day.

“We want there to be a clear six days so that, by the time we reach Christmas Eve, staff can have a proper break without having to engage in the track and trace issues.”

How seriously will school leaders take the additional opportunity for in-service training? Hopefully, they will suggest training at home rather than requiring attendance at the school site. Of course, some supply teachers stand to lose a possible day’s pay as a result of this announcement.  

With the looming pay freeze for next year facing teachers, I wonder how teachers will receive this badly wrapped present. A pay freeze may send some teachers overseas next year and others looking for promotion, so ‘churn’ may increase next year. At TeachVac www.teachvac.co.uk we also expect more leadership vacancies than in recent years, especially in the primary sector, as leaders decide they have had enough of muddle and mixed messages about the handling of the pandemic.

The National Education Union has published a useful set of maps showing how covid-19 cases have ebbed and flowed for primary age pupils and the 10-14 age-group during the course of the autumn term between September to the first week in December. It is not clear what moves the government has taken to ensure vulnerable staff are properly protected. Looking back over this blog, I notice I made a suggestion about identifying possible staff ‘at risk’ and ensuring that they weren’t in contact with pupils. Figures for the cost of supply staff suggests that this wasn’t taken up as an idea.

Certainly my idea of employing NQTs without a teaching post as supernumerary staff wasn’t acted upon. I wonder whether this would have been a cheaper option than boosting the profits of the supply agencies.

Finally, I was struck by this paragraph from the report of an Ofsted virtual visit to a secondary school in early November

Teachers have checked what pupils remember and used this knowledge to help them plan lessons. Overall, they have found that the areas pupils needed help with before lockdown are even more of a priority now. For example, pupils who previously found reading tricky now need extra help. You are using some of the COVID-19 catch-up premium to address this by employing extra staff and purchasing additional resources.

Recovering the damage done by covid-19 to children’s education is going to be a key task for 2021 and beyond.

Employment based routes hit new lows

Posted on by
1

In a year when recruitment to teacher preparation courses was on the increase, any aim the government might have had to increase the share of school-based preparation courses has stalled. The government issued the annual census of trainees on teacher preparation courses today.https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/initial-teacher-training-trainee-number-census-2020-to-2021

I am not a great fan of the new way of presenting statistics, and especially of the challenges it present when trying to create specific tables. However that aside, the key points are that as expected: trainee numbers are up, but that not all subjects met the Teacher Supply Model number for the year. Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised by that fact as I had predicted that would be the case, despite the increase in applications in the March to September period.

Higher Education, no doubt helped by the offer of both undergraduate and postgraduate places, increased its share of the market from 38% to 41%. Still way off its former levels, but no longer on a downward trend. School Direct Salaried route, the classic employment based route, was the big faller; down from 7% to 5% this year. Teach First took 4% against 5% last year. SCITTs held steady at 12% as did the Fee-based School Direct route at 23% of the total.

Some tables produced today by the DfE may include the small number of trainees forecast to join courses after the census date, but the differences are small.

Future blogs will explore the data in more details, but arts and humanities, and some subjects that have recruited poorly in recent years, have done well, even if in the case of Design and Technology and Physics and Chemistry, mathematics and Modern Languages they still did not meet the Teacher Supply Model number for the year.

The increase in Physics from 42% to 45% of the TSM number was especially disappointing, but not surprising.

Of more concern to those on courses and HM Treasury must be the over-recruitment in history –up from 115% to 175% of target and Physical Education, up from 105% to 135%. In these subjects, all trainees will struggle to find teaching posts in England in 2021 and it would be ironic if the government is funding teacher preparation for teachers forced to work overseas to practice their professional skills due to a lack of teaching posts in England.

Primary courses also over-recruited to target, and some may struggle in some parts of the country to find teaching posts for September or at the end of undergraduate courses if the decline in school rolls continues.

Little or Large?

Posted on by
2

The DfE is once again showing signs of wanting to progress its review of the Initial Teacher Training (ITT) market, first announced nearly two years ago as a part of a Recruitment and Retention Strategy, if an article in SchoolsWeek is to be believed. https://schoolsweek.co.uk/dfe-to-reboot-itt-market-review-to-slim-down-sector/.

Does it make sense to slim down the teacher preparation market sector to a smaller number of providers? Well, certainly, those providers that shut up shop at the end of June and leave the heavy lifting of recruitment over the summer to others might be considered as not fully participating in ensuring that all places on teacher preparation courses are filled.

With the DfE aiming to take over the application process, it may also make sense to have to interact with fewer larger providers in order to more easily manage the market.

On the other hand, as NASBITT has pointed out, the ITT sector is performing exceptionally well. Ofsted inspections have 99% of providers rated good or better. On this basis, it seems odd that any DfE officials should think too much provision is of poor quality, especially without providing the evidence for that judgement.

As NASBTT makes clear, smaller SCITT providers very often serve a very specific need in recruitment cold-spots and rural/coastal communities. Often, in the past, larger central providers did not manage to service the needs of schools in these areas, which is often why the smaller providers emerged in the first place in order to to fill the gap.

Smaller local providers can also meet the needs of career switchers that are unwilling to move long distances to undertake their course to become a teacher. This was, after all, the thinking behind the School Direct Salaried Scheme and its predecessor Employment-based routes of the past thirty years.

Large providers in the wrong place don’t meet the needs of the market and the DfE has always wrestled with the need for both quality provision and the recruitment of around 35,000 trainees each year that are willing to train to meet the needs of all schools.

Perhaps, any review might focus on those schools that find recruiting NQTs a challenge and explore how within a market system of recruitment, schools can recruit their fair share of NQTs?

A compromise might be for the DfE to engage with a few larger providers – perhaps NASBTT could even be one of them and UCET another – and these wholesalers of places would then handle the smaller units actually undertaking the training. There are some examples of national providers in the past, of which The Open University was perhaps the most well-known. Indeed, might this be an opportune moment for that University to reconsider returning to providing initial teacher preparation courses across England?

What the DfE must not do is undermine recruitment to the profession at this extremely sensitive moment in time. The ITT core content framework has only just been rolled out, as have the expectations under the new ITE inspection framework. As NASBTT point out, providers need time to embed and consolidate this before any further changes are thrust upon them. If it isn’t broke, be careful about how you fix it.

Are Ministers responsible?

Posted on by
2

Should the Secretary of State for Education resign over the exams fiasco? I guess your answer depends upon your view on the doctrine of ministerial responsibility.

Back when I was a mere lad studying at the LSE, the leading case on the subject was only about 12 years old. This was what has become known to historians as the Crichel Down affair. It resulted in the resignation in 1954 of the then Minister of Agriculture following a public inquiry that was critical of his Department over the handling of parcel of land acquired for wartime use, I think for an airfield.

Mr Dugdale resigned, telling Parliament that “I, as minister, must accept full responsibility for any mistakes and inefficiency of officials in my department, just as, when my officials bring off any successes on my behalf, I take full credit for them.”

Such resignations, although honourable, are rare, and most Ministers tend to try and tough it out after something has gone wrong that is until their continued occupation of ministerial office becomes such an embarrassment to the government that the Prime minister makes it known that they should quit. Many, of course, don’t survive the next reshuffle.

This is a Prime minister that can be ruthless when he wants to be, as we saw in the run up to last year’s general election. However, I guess there have been so many mistakes this year since the start of the pandemic that any loss of a single cabinet minister might trigger demands for other heads to roll. Perhaps as with the changes to PHE, Ofqual’s days are numbered, and, perhaps, it will be returned to the DfE, much as happened to teacher training a few years ago.

What happens with the GCSE results between now and the weekend, and the cost of any bailout of universities resulting from the fallout of the A level –U-turn may well seal the fate of Mr Williamson.

Following on from the Crichel Down affair, the then Home Secretary, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, suggested that ministers should not be held responsible for actions that they did not know about or of which they disapproved. However, they still needed to tell parliament what has happened, so that the legislature can discussed with full knowledge of the facts. I expect the Education Select Committee to hold a hearing sooner rather than later. At present, all we have is trial by media.

Ought the Secretary of State have known about the consequences of a policy of preventing grade inflation when there were no examinations to mark? Is knowing in principle, but not asking about the consequences a defence? The court of public opinion seems to think not. If it became clear that a minister had been briefed of the consequences, resignation would seem inevitable.

More likely we will lurch towards the beginning of September with the hope that re-opening of schools would be another disaster. If it is, then surely changes will be necessary.

Since writing this post, the Head of the Qualifications Agency has departed, as has the Permanent Secretary at the DfE. This is the highest civil service post in the DfE. By early evening on the 28th August no Minister has resigned.

Some subjects may still be short of teachers in 2021

Posted on by
Reply

The covid-19 pandemic has come too late in the recruitment round to ensure that all teacher preparation courses for graduates in all subjects will recruit enough students for September 2020 in order to ensure enough teachers for September 2021 vacancies.

On the basis of the July data from UCAS, the number of ‘Placed’, ‘Conditionally Placed’ and ‘Holding an Offer’ applications were sufficient in biology; Business Studies; English; history; music; physical education; religious education; art and modern languages to reasonably expect the DfE’s Teacher Supply Number to be reached. The percentage in art and design is the highest number recorded for more than a decade. The primary sector should also exceed its target set by the DfE.

On the other hand, computing and geography might meet the target with a few more acceptable applicants during the summer. However, it seems unlikely that chemistry; design & technology; mathematics and physics will meet the desired number this year. There simply haven’t been enough time to attract applicants, unless that is there is a stream of highly qualified applicants between early July and the start of September.

Interestingly, 24% of applications in physics were in the ‘Placed’, ‘Conditionally Placed’ and ‘Holding an Offer’ categories by mid-July 2020. This was the same percentage as in 2019. The figure for mathematics was also 24% in both July 2019 and July 2020. In Chemistry it had dropped from 25% in 2019, to 23% this year, although there were nearly 600 more applications for providers to process, so the final percentage might be higher.

In music, the percentage in the ‘Placed’, ‘Conditionally Placed’ and ‘Holding an Offer’ categories by mid-July 2020 was 32%, one of the highest for any subject, and up from 26% in July 2019. Physical education, not a shortage subject, has seen their percentage increase from 20% in July 2019 to 24% in July 2020.

So, 2020 looks like being the best year for recruitment into training for teaching for five or six years, but it seems unlikely that all subjects will meet their targets. However, there may well be a glut of both physical education and history teachers entering the market in 2021, unless all the vacancies lost this year by schools either retrenching or not needing to recruit appear again for September 2021.

Would I take on the extra debt to train as either a PE or a history teacher? Well, I would certainly look at the employment record of the course offering me a place this year and check with TeachVac www.teachvac.co.uk what the job situation is like in these subjects, especially in view of any debt to the government that will be incurred by joining the course. After all, we don’t know what might happen to interest rates and repayment terms as the government seeks to manage the economy over the next few years.

Support school leaders

Posted on by
Reply

One of the more interesting aspects of the labour market in education at this time is the number of head teacher vacancies on offer. A quick search on the DfE’s web site revealed that 15% of the 168 vacancies listed today were for head teachers. To verify that number, it is necessary to remove all non-teaching posts – of which there are still quite a few- and separate out the genuine head teacher vacancies from other leadership posts that include not only other senior leadership posts, at deputy and assistant head teacher level, but also head of department vacancies.

This number of head teacher vacancies in late July is not exceptional, but normally one would have expected schools to have made arrangements for leadership during the next school-year that all too soon will be upon us.

However, recognising the huge strain that has been placed upon head teachers since the start of the covid-19 pandemic, and the universal lockdown of society, it would not be surprising if some head teachers were now starting to think of their future.

It is essential that head teachers, and indeed all staff in schools, can take a genuine break over the next six to seven weeks. The long autumn term is always a strain for everyone, even after a normal summer break. To start September not fully refreshed is to risk an education system that will just not function properly.

My concern about staffing in the autumn, following the collapse in vacancies since March, has led me to call for a scheme to provide support for newly qualified teachers unable to secure a teaching job. These new teachers are a resource we cannot afford to squander.

We have seen them invest in their training through the student loan programme. They entered into training as teachers in good faith. In some case making the decision to train as a teacher in the autumn of 2018, when applications opened. Dumping these individuals on the growing pile of the unemployed, while the interest payments on their student loans continues to mount up, is not fair.

As I have said in the past, we don’t treat trainee members of the armed forces or many other public services, including new recruits to the civil service, in this way.

If we lose even 20% of this year’s class of new teachers from the profession that will have a profound effect on middle and senior leadership recruitment in the years to come.

Should we see a surge in departures of head teachers, either in the autumn or more likely next January, then we do need to have the candidates in the system to step up and fill the roles that underpin the supply of new head teachers.

We might also start by looking at how many Executive Head Teachers there are overseeing MATs, and whether there is room for rationalisation, and some cost saving as a result.

This has been a challenging year for school leaders, and those responsible for policy must ensure that one of the consequences of covid-19 is not a breakdown in the leadership of any of our schools.

Bring back the Star Chamber?

Posted on by
Reply

Bring back the Star Chamber? Head teachers retuned to schools on Monday to find that the simple form the DfE had be asking schools to complete about pupil attendance during lockdown had suddenly, and without warning, ballooned to one of over 19 pages in length.

Now, as someone that has made a career out of management information, I expect the required information is very useful to help Ministers answer the inevitable barrage of questions about their handling of the extension of the opening of schools. I nearly wrote re-opening, but of course, most schools never closed, and in some cases remained open during the Easter holiday period. As a result, it is wrong to talk of re-opening.

Anyway, in the past, it sometimes took up to two years to achieve a very small change in any data being collected from schools. I well recall the lead up to the introduction of the School Workforce Census, and the debates about what could and could not be collected.

Of course, the net result of imposing additional data collection on schools is that probably more schools will have thrown up their hands in horror and not returned anything, not even what they were returning by way of management information up to Friday of last week.

In one sense, I don’t suppose that Ministers will mind, assuming the demands originated from the political end of the DfE, since so long as they have some returns they can say ‘evidence suggests that …’ and nobody can gainsay the quality of the evidence, then they are satisfied. What ONS might make of this could be another matter.

I took part in a conference call on Tuesday with a hardworking set of local government officers, many of whom had been sending me emails over the weekend as they helped schools prepare for their new world order. So, this is the time and place to pay tribute to both the officers and the staff and governors of schools that have all worked so hard to keep the teaching and learning show on the road since lockdown was introduced.

Local authorities have had a hard time of it over the past thirty years, but those that have preserved a functioning education section have shown the value of a tier at this level to help the DfE manage the system. I don’t see all academies or MATs working with their Regional School Commissioners, but I do hear of them joining in with the local authority. And, as a politician, I know that parents turn to local politicians if they have any questions about what is happening. I wonder how many contact either RSCs or the DfE.

Issues of the span of control dominate structures in all organisations, and in the review of how the pandemic has been handled, the role of local authorities and education should be properly assessed and compared with the NHS and social care sectors, one of which has little or no local accountability these days and the other is a hybrid. Which works well and for what tasks?

Government response to crisis predicted?

Posted on by
1

The Insight team’s article about the handling of the present emergency, written up in yesterday’s Sunday Times, must have made uncomfortable reading for some. However, a visitor to this blog this morning also reminded me of Dominic Cumming’s famous essay in the autumn of 2013 about the education system in England.

To quote just one paragraph:

The education of the majority even in rich countries is between awful and mediocre. A tiny number, less than 1 percent, are educated in the basics of how the ‘unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics’ provides the ‘language of nature’ and a foundation for our scientific civilisation and  only a small subset of that <1% then study trans-disciplinary issues concerning the understanding, prediction and control of complex nonlinear systems. Unavoidably, the level of one’s mathematical understanding imposes limits on the depth to which one can explore many subjects. For example, it is impossible to follow academic debates about IQ unless one knows roughly what ‘normal distribution’ and ‘standard deviation’ mean, and many political decisions, concerning issues such as risk, cannot be wisely taken without at least knowing of the existence of mathematical tools such as conditional probability. Only a few aspects of this problem will be mentioned.

I first used this in a blog post on the 13th October 2013. I especially wonder whether the comment that

…. and many political decisions, concerning issues such as risk, cannot be wisely taken without at least knowing of the existence of mathematical tools such as conditional probability …

Might have come home to roost as the present outbreak bites ever deeper into national life? Why, for instance, is the government not commissioning the BBC to create a single on-line learning tool instead of setting up a competing organisation? All it needed was to ensure the BBC used UK technology to create the platform rather than to waste scare resources when we should be saving every penny we can.

On the same subject, those that have viewed my LinkedIn page will know of the graph demonstrating TeachVac is still well ahead of the DfE vacancy site in terms of teaching posts on offer. Why waste school staff time uploading to the DfE site when we can offer a more comprehensive solution.

Indeed, as Chair of TeachVac’s parent company, I would be willing to approve a free feed to the DfE site for the summer term to show what can be done.

Schools will need to cut costs in the future, and recruitment is not one that they should be expecting to spend lots of money on from now onward. However, until there is a single site carrying most teaching vacancies, schools will still want to try other methods.

The full text of Dominic Cummings essay was located at:   http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/804396/some-thoughts-on-education-and-political.pdf