KS2: The London effect?

Posted on December 12, 2025 by John Howson

Earlier this year, I produced a report looking at the changes in pupil teacher ratios over the past fifty years as between London boroughs and the rest of England’s local authorities that have remained on the same boundaries since 1974. London boroughs generally have had some of the ‘best’ PTRs throughout the past 50 years. As a result, it was no surprise to see how well schools in the London boroughs performed in the KS2 results for 2025, published by the DfE yesterday.

It is interesting to look at just one measure, the percentage of pupils achieving the higher standard in Reading, and the percentage change in this measure over the past decade or so.

	2015/16	2024/25
	higher	higher	difference
LA	Reading	Reading
Waltham Forest	15%	44%	29%
Redbridge	19%	45%	26%
Westminster	18%	43%	25%
Haringey	20%	43%	23%
Newham	18%	41%	23%
Hammersmith and Fulham	24%	46%	22%
Luton	11%	33%	22%
Merton	22%	44%	22%
Barking and Dagenham	15%	37%	22%
Enfield	15%	37%	22%
Sutton	25%	47%	22%
Hackney	21%	42%	21%
Brent	16%	37%	21%
Barnet	24%	44%	20%
Bexley	20%	40%	20%
Lewisham	19%	39%	20%
Southwark	19%	39%	20%
Slough	19%	39%	20%
Tower Hamlets	18%	38%	20%
Birmingham	14%	34%	20%
Leicester	11%	31%	20%
Trafford	27%	47%	20%
Solihull	20%	39%	19%
Hillingdon	19%	38%	19%
Ealing	18%	37%	19%
Wolverhampton	14%	33%	19%
Barnsley	13%	32%	19%
Thurrock	13%	32%	19%
Doncaster	11%	30%	19%
Camden	23%	42%	19%
Greenwich	22%	41%	19%
Croydon	17%	36%	19%
Richmond upon Thames	36%	54%	18%
Kingston upon Hull, City of	15%	33%	18%
Kensington and Chelsea	30%	48%	18%
Blackburn with Darwen	13%	31%	18%
Walsall	13%	31%	18%
Knowsley	12%	30%	18%
North East Lincolnshire	11%	29%	18%
Lambeth	23%	40%	17%
Stockport	22%	39%	17%
Warrington	21%	38%	17%
Stockton-on-Tees	16%	33%	17%
Bromley	27%	44%	17%
Wandsworth	25%	42%	17%
Harrow	24%	41%	17%
Milton Keynes	19%	36%	17%
Sandwell	13%	30%	17%

Leaving aside the City of London, with its one primary school that has been excluded form the dataset, 28 of the London boroughs appear in the table. This compares with 20 local authorities outside of London. None of the latter are ‘shire’ counties. Not even the Home Counties of Surrey or Hertfordshire make it into the list.

Looking at the other end of the table, there is a preponderance of counties authorities in the list

Tameside	15%	28%	13%
Southend-on-Sea	20%	33%	13%
South Gloucestershire	20%	33%	13%
Telford and Wrekin	19%	32%	13%
St. Helens	18%	31%	13%
Rochdale	14%	27%	13%
Portsmouth	14%	27%	13%
Blackpool	13%	26%	13%
Oldham	13%	26%	13%
Rutland	23%	36%	13%
Cheshire East	22%	35%	13%
Cambridgeshire	22%	35%	13%
Lancashire	17%	30%	13%
Bedford	16%	29%	13%
Cheshire West and Chester	22%	34%	12%
Havering	22%	34%	12%
Herefordshire, County of	21%	33%	12%
Nottingham	15%	27%	12%
Gateshead	20%	32%	12%
Cornwall	20%	32%	12%
Torbay	20%	32%	12%
East Sussex	19%	31%	12%
South Tyneside	18%	30%	12%
Derbyshire	18%	30%	12%
Suffolk	18%	30%	12%
Swindon	18%	30%	12%
Derby	14%	26%	12%
Warwickshire	23%	35%	12%
Oxfordshire	23%	35%	12%
Gloucestershire	23%	35%	12%
Southampton	17%	29%	12%
Hampshire	23%	34%	11%
Devon	23%	34%	11%
Bristol, City of	22%	33%	11%
North Somerset	22%	33%	11%
Lincolnshire	17%	28%	11%
Central Bedfordshire	17%	28%	11%
County Durham	20%	31%	11%
Calderdale	20%	31%	11%
Shropshire	20%	31%	11%
Sefton	18%	29%	11%
Norfolk	18%	29%	11%
East Riding of Yorkshire	18%	28%	10%
Wiltshire	23%	33%	10%
Darlington	22%	32%	10%
West Berkshire	25%	34%	9%
Bath and North East Somerset	27%	36%	9%
Brighton and Hove	26%	35%	9%
Northumberland	21%	29%	8%
Isle of Wight	16%	23%	7%

Even among the unitary authorities in the list, some, such as the East riding of Yorkshire and West Berkshire might be considered predominantly rural in nature.

So, what might be deduced from this data? Parental help does make a difference. Has the ‘gentrification’ of Walthamstow help propel it to the top of the table? To consider the issue of parental support versus government funding for schools it is worth considering the present percentage of achievement at this higher grade by schools in two parliamentary constituencies that I am familiar with; Tottenham, where I started my teaching career, and Oxford East, part of the city where I have lived and worked for the past 45 years.

SCHOOL Higher Grade RWM in KS” 2025	TOTENHAM	OXFORD EAST
A	35
B	27
C	23
D	18	18
E	17	17
F	15
G	15
H	15
I	14	14
J	13	13
K	13	13
L		13
M	12
N	11	11
O	10	10
P	9	9
Q		9
R	8
S	8
T	7	7
U	7	7
V	7	7
W	7	7
X	6
Y	6
Z	5	5
AA		5
AB		5
AC	4	4
AD	4	4
AE	3	3
AF		3
AG	2	3
AH		2
AI		2
AJ	0	0
AK		0


total	322	193
schools	28	27
average	11.5	7.1

Both might be seen as constituencies with significant pockets of deprivation, but also areas subject to ‘gentrification’ in recent years. Schools in Oxford East have a profile with lower percentages than schools in Tottenham. How much of the difference can be ascribed to parents, and how much to better funding for London schools? Of course, class sizes also matter. But, as both are urban areas, the issue of small rural schools doesn’t really arise as it would if one compared Oxford East with its neighbouring constituency of Henley.

This work is at an early stage, but it does pose the question about the deep structure of school funding and, especially, the use of average salary data in any calculations in the funding of schools.

No High Needs Block data in NFF announcement

Posted on November 20, 2025 by John Howson

Yesterday, the DfE announced the National Funding Formula (NFF) for 2026/27 The national funding formula for schools The formula covers schools and local authority delivered central services

Unlike last year, there is no section on the High Needs Block that deals with SEND funding. The details will be announced later, at some unspecified time. One other small change seems to be in the calculation of the sparsity index, where the footnote from the 2025/26 NFF document seems to be missing from the main document this year.

Last year, there as a footnote that stated in a footnote on page 26 – paragraphs were not numbered last year – that “6 A compatible school means one of the relevant phases which a pupil could attend. Selective grammar schools are not considered when identifying the second nearest compatible school, but faith schools are included.”

This year, paragraph 25 states that “Eligibility for sparsity funding depends on the distance the pupils living closest to the school would have to travel to their next nearest compatible school, and the average number of pupils per year group.” However, there is no comment about what is a compatible school.

So, no change, apart from the lack of a definition of a ‘compatible school’. This footnote has now been relocated to the Technical Manual, and appears as footnote 9 on page 19 of the manual. Schools block national funding formula 2026 to 2027: technical note

Overall, the minimum per pupil funding for primary pupils increases from £4955 to £5115, and for secondary pupils up to year 11, from £6,455 to £6,640. Schools

in IDACI band G will, as before, receive no additional funding through that factor. If they don’t qualify for additional funds through other factors, and some schools won’t, as 62.5% of LSOAs are in IDACI Band G, this could be a challenging year for them.

Many of these schools will no doubt turn to parents for support, or perhaps more will follow the north London school, and look to bring in additional income from operating overseas alongside the many private schools that already have overseas campuses?

With the budget next week, and the local government settlement not being announced any earlier than last year, plus the delay in the High Needs Block announcement, this is going to be a tough budget setting time for schools and local authorities between now and February, when the upper tier local authorities responsible for the NFF must set their council budgets.

Perhaps the High Needs block will feature as a rabbit in the Chancellor’s budget speech to make everyone feel better that the government has found a solution to the massive deficits protected by the override that was extended to March 2027.

Reading the document, I was also struck by the fact that there are more references to local authorities than to the ‘schools forum’. Has the latter run its course as a decision-making body? Is it time to review its future, and certainly its membership?

Special Needs – is nothing new?

Posted on September 5, 2025 by John Howson

Serendipity is defined as a fortunate finding of something unexpected. The origin of the term is credited to Horace Walpole. Earlier this afternoon, while waiting for some data on ITT statistics from the early 1990s that were being brought up from the reserve stacks of a library, I browsed through a bound volume of the TES for March 1991 that happened to be available.

The TES for the 22^nd March 1991 contained a report of the annual conference of educational psychologist, the spring being education conference season even then. The report contained the following report

‘The government confirmed that there has been a widespread increase in the number of children referred for special help to support the claims of educational psychologists who believe that their numbers have increased by 50%. … Anthea Millett HMI for special needs said many local authorities reported an increase in referrals for assessment by educational psychologists.’ (TES 22/3/91 page 3)

One reason suggested was that as schools were becoming liable for their own budgets under local management of schools that had been set out in the 1988 Education Reform Act, schools were more anxious to obtain the statutory help that a statement of special needs brought with it.

Interestingly, in 1990, over 100 MPs had signed an Early Day motion in the House of Commons to the effect that ‘many children in urgent need of help and advice from an educational psychologist are waiting unacceptable lengths of time’. (TES 22/3/91 P3)

In an editorial in the same edition as the news item referred to above, it was claimed that devolution of funds to schools had exposed the crudeness of existing formula for special needs that had made proper funding for children with special needs a lottery for schools, and that the 1988 Education Reform Act had not paid attention to the needs of children with special needs. The prediction that children with special needs would be a casualty of the Act was now coming true.

All of this seems very reminiscent of the current situation of a growth in demand and concerns over the funding for that growth, as does the analysis in the editorial that devolving funds to schools had allowed schools to identify many children with needs not being met that required extra funding.

As the editorial concluded, ‘The pre-LMS discretionary targeting of resources by LEAs according to putative need was often little more than a system of rationing inadequate funds. Those with the most efficient advocates or most obvious handicaps (sic) got first pickings. The rest got little or nothing – often not even a proper assessment.’ (TES 22/3/91 P21)

Reading this bit of history, reminded me of the present explosion in demand for EHCPs as schools struggled with demand they felt was not funded. This time around, local authorities faced with the 2014 Act opted for running up deficits rather than rationing, except that is by using the NHS favoured outcome of rationing by waiting time for assessments.

One wonders what the government has learnt about special needs funding over the past 35 years, and what the White Paper will do? Will it just tell schools to devote more of their resources to dealing with the issue? Or, will there by more cash – this seems unlikely, but one can but hope.

STRB and teacher recruitment

Posted on July 9, 2023 by John Howson

Before 2015, the STRB (School Teachers’ Pay Review Body) used to report no later than March in most years, School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB) reports – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) However, since the Conservative Party took over the sole management of the country in 2015, the publication of the STRB’s annual report, along with other pay body reports, has moved to July each year.

Such a date, so late in the annual government business cycle, at a point where departments should already be gearing up the next round of economic arguments within government, is unhelpful in many ways.

Obviously, it leaves The Treasury unsure about government expenditure, assuming the suggestions of the STRB are both accepted and fully funded. If one or other of those assumptions isn’t correct, but pay scales are increased from the September, then it places a burden on schools to find the cash to pay any increases, as I discussed in an earlier post. Sunak’s blunt axe | John Howson (wordpress.com)

The lack of clarity around starting salaries also makes recruitment into the profession potentially more challenging. A significant proportion of those entering the profession are still required to make a financial sacrifice to train as a teacher. To do so not knowing what either the possible salary they will receive during training – if paid on the unqualified scale – or their potential starting salary, if on a fee-paying course, is not an incentive to enter teaching. This may be specially the case for the important group of career switchers that are needed during the present dip in the number of new home-based graduates in their early 20s.

Once the new generation of graduates from the last baby boomer generation exits university, in a few years’ time, this may be less of an issue, assuming higher education entry rates hold up, and those most likely to become teachers don’t opt for apprenticeships or direct entry into the labour market and a salary immediately after leaving school.

Governments have always faced economic crises, lucky the Chancellor with benign economic headwinds, and must take difficult decisions. 101 years ago, the Liberal Government faced with the massive increase in government expenditure sanctioned by a government to fight the first world war, and seeking to restrain sky-high rates of taxation, looked for areas where public expenditure could be reduced – or cut – an exercise known after the chairman of the committee, Lord Geddes.

Perhaps, The Labour Party’s Leader’s speech on the ‘class ceiling’ was no accident, because it is those trying to crash through the ceiling that experience the worse outcomes of any pay restraint that leaders to teacher shortages. As I pointed in an earlier post, out, identifying the issue is one thing; solving it needs policies, and they were in short-supply in the speech from Sir Kier Starmer last week.

Perhaps, as suggested in the 1920s, rather than just telling schools to save money, the government might be more draconian in enforcing savings to pay for increased pay. But then, this, sadly, isn’t an area where the present government has had a good track record in recent times.

Teacher Recruitment Crisis: is the end in sight?

Posted on March 10, 2023 by John Howson

Yesterday, Silicon Valley Bank hit a bump in the road. Most readers won’t have heard of this American bank that has created a niche for itself by lending to technology start-ups, including in the famous Silicon Valley, south of San Francisco.

However, might yesterday’s event prove as significant as Northern Rock’s fall from grace was in the first decade of the century at marking a turning point in the business cycle. If it does, then whatever the outcome of the current teachers’ pay dispute, teaching will look like a safe haven in a disturbed economic order. And, as in past bouts of turmoil, more people will seek to become teachers in any uncertain times, and those that quit for pastures new will seek to return in greater number.

Three years ago there was a spike in interest in teaching as a career when lockdown and the covid pandemic looked as if it would create disruption in the labour market. The furlough scheme and other government initiatives meant that spike in interest in teaching as a career was short-lived.

The banking crisis of 2008 led to record numbers of graduates seeking to train as a teacher, reaching 67,000 applicants in the course of the 2009/10 cycle. By contrast, in 2021/22 cycle the total number of applicants only reached 39,288 according to DfE data: less than two per place.

Of course, by tomorrow, Silicon Valley Bank will no doubt have calmed investors and the risks will have been reassessed. However, the fundamental point about the relationship between the health of the economy and teaching as a career, at least in England where there is a well-developed labour market for graduates, will still hold good. Booming economies are bad for teaching as a career: recessions encourage more to consider teaching as a career, and current teachers not to take the risk of leaving.

Government statisticians are still predicting the possibility of a mild recession in the United Kingdom at some point this year, so perhaps we can predict the end of the current recruitment crisis in teaching?

Sadly, I think it will take more than mild recession to bail out the teacher labour market, at least in the secondary school sector. Falling rolls helps, as the divergence between the labour markets in the primary and secondary school sectors is now starting to make clear. Ironically, a high pay settlement, not fully funded for schools, would also reduce demand, but push up class sizes and affect the quality of learning in other ways.

However, if a recession doesn’t bail out the teacher labour market, might the very type of companies that the Silicon Valley Bank supports help out? Teaching as an occupation has made remarkably little use of technology to support the teacher pupil interface. The government might well set up a research institute to identify how to improve the capital/labour relationship in teaching so as to widen the range of qualifications acceptable to become a teacher. They might focus less on subject knowledge and more on human interactions and motivation as a means of promoting learning. They might also reduce teacher’s workload by taking away as many administrative chores as possible.

But, as we have seen in the recruitment of teachers, driving down costs by new technology doesn’t always change spending habits. Pay teachers more: use technology more effectively and create a 21^st century schooling system. Now there’s a thought for the ASCL Conference this weekend.

Per Pupil Funding set to fall

Posted on January 30, 2023 by John Howson

Last week, the DfE released data on the change in per pupil funding for 5-16 year olds between 2010-11 and 2023/-24

One the face of it, this is a good news story. Funding per pupil has increased in cash terms from £5,180 in 2010-11 to £7,460 in 2023-24. After falling in the first few years, per pupil funding increased from 2018-19 onwards, according to the DfE data. School funding statistics: 2022 to 2023 financial year – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Looking at the same data using 2022-23 prices reveals a similar picture up to the projections for 2023-24 funding per pupil where, using 2022-23 cash prices, the increase for 2023-24 is not currently enough to allow for the effects of inflation, and funding per pupil falls below funding in cash terms. After taking into account the extra funds received by schools to deal with the pandemic that have either ended already or are likely to do so soon, and weren’t incorporated into the headline figure to ensure the integrity of the time series data, it is possible to see why some schools, especially in the primary sector may be facing a real funding dilemma once again.

According to the DfE, the figures for 2023-24 are based on a combination of published funding allocations, the budget settlements agreed at the 2021 Spending Review and 2022 Autumn Statement, and some estimates of small grant and high needs spending. Of course, the final outturn might prove to be different, in part depending upon how the government and the STRB deal with the issue of teachers’ pay and pay levels for non-teaching staff.

Will the DfE add funds to cover the eventual pay settlement that will recognise the effects of high inflation or will they expect schools to handle the additional costs within the presently agreed funding envelope?

As I have remarked before, the Pay Review body system worked relatively well in times of low inflation and the date for reporting became decoupled from the pay year. The STRB’s 2022 report was published in January of that year, well in time for the new funding cycle to be adjusted to mee the cost of the settlement.

I guess the political shambles at Westminster in the early autumn, and the revolving door of ministers, prevented both the Treasury and spending departments from making the case for bringing Pay Review body Reports forward once it was clear inflation was going to reach a 40-year high.

The DfE data aggregates all 5-16 spending, so these data don’t show the potential differential impact on the primary sector of the current Funding formula, high fixed costs and in many cases falling rolls. The policy for handing demographic decline doesn’t seem clear to me. Is the government willing to see large numbers of small schools close or will it expect academy trusts to cross-subsidise between sectors as a means of forcing the remaining primary schools to become part of a MAT in order to survive, since local authorities cannot vire funds between schools as MATs are able to do.

To hypothecate or not?

Posted on March 13, 2022 by John Howson

Civil Servants don’t seem to be very good at procurement if you read the latest report from the Education Select Committee at Westminster into the National Tutoring Programme. Disadvantaged pupils facing ‘epidemic’ of educational inequality – Committees – UK Parliament this has not been a success. The Secretary of State recognised this in his speech to the ASCL Conference.

The issue of procurement and value for money is something that I have written about before on this blog. Bulk buying back in vogue | John Howson (wordpress.com) With the present pressure on prices due to the world situation, schools and the whole education sector are going to need to review their spending. If we were to take 100,000 extra children from Ukraine, as announced by the Secretary of State Education Secretary addresses Association of School and College Leaders conference – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

‘And we have a team that’s already making plans for a capacity of 100,000 Ukrainian children that will come in and take their places in our schools.’

This will impact on funding unless the government is prepared to fully fund the extra places. Wil the funding by hypothecated, as will be the £350 per month householder grant for refugees or just added to the normal school funding round?

At least teachers from Ukraine will be able to work in England as the Secretary of State also said in his speech:

“And because teaching is an increasingly global profession, I want to attract the very best teachers from across the world.

That is why we will also introduce a new relocation premium to help with visas and other expenses for teachers and trainees moving here from abroad.

But even this is not enough: I want our country to be known around the world as the place to train and practise teaching, rivalling the likes of Shanghai, Canada and of course Finland.”

I assume that these changes will be introduced in time to help Ukrainian teachers fleeing the war with their families, as well as any Russian citizens unhappy with their government and fleeing a prison sentence for protesting against the war that might be teachers.

As my recent post on the dilemmas of teaching discussed, hypothecating finance isn’t just a national matter. Schools have to decide how to use their budgets between the needs of different pupils. In this respect, the announcements about SEND will be eagerly awaited, as funding for that sector is in woefully short supply.

Finally, local authorities especially in the shires, will be facing rising transport bills for school transport and social services visits along with other cost increases. For the past eight years, I have demonstrated how recruitment advertising can be much cheaper than it has been. Perhaps, it is now time for the DfE to get together with professional associations and other interested parties to work out how real saving can be made without reducing services. The past few years have seen an explosion of talent in education entrepreneurship. BETT would be a good place for the Secretary of State to announce new initiatives to help avoid wasting cash as has happened in the past.

Bye-bye ESFA: Hello ESFA

Posted on February 16, 2022 by John Howson

Yesterday, the DfE published the outcome of the review into the Education and Skills Funding Agency led by Sir David Bell plus its response to the review and the resulting changes from 1^st April 2022.

Review of the Education and Skills Funding Agency – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

There are a lot of detailed proposals, but some that struck me of more general interest are these – with the government’s response below the recommendation.

We recommend that further work is done as part of school system reform to create a more strategic and shared understanding of responsibilities between DfE, ESFA, and Ofsted, and that the outcomes of this work are communicated widely

Agreed.

We recommend that the department should have a unified directing voice at a regional level. We have contributed to the current Future DfE project which is bringing together functions in the regional tier, and which will resolve the form and nature of that directing voice

Agreed. Assessing the functions and approach to post-16 regional work will be taken forward as part of developing the Further Education, Higher Education and Employers work set out above and be led by the Director General. We will benefit from learning from the experience of establishing the pre-16 regional tier.

We recommend that, in keeping with our finding that ESFA should focus on funding delivery, the functions in Academies and Maintained Schools Directorate not linked to the funding delivery role, and not required by ESFA’s Accounting Officer to provide assurance, should move to DfE. This means that the non-financial regulatory functions for academies and the functions related to school/trust governance should move to DfE’s pre-16 regional tier, as should new trust and free school activity, UTC engagement, and networking events.

Agreed.

We recommend DfE considers bringing the complaints functions for maintained schools and academies together in a fully centralised complaints system within the department

Agreed.

We recommend that ownership of the Academy Trust Handbook should move to DfE’s School Systems, Academies and Reform Directorate, unless the focus of the Handbook is narrowed back towards a tool for financial management only.

Agreed.

The ESFA had become rather unwieldy over time and these changes will move it back towards its original core function relating to the handling of the financing of the school system.

More interestingly is the re-alignment of the school system with the wider government regional framework. With the levelling up agenda being a cross-department exercise in government, this re-alignment makes sense. However, it doesn’t fit with the boundaries of Headteacher boards and Regional School Commissioners. Could the days of this unelected post be numbered? After all, might there be some cash savings to be made and, if all schools were academies of one sort or another, then one key function would have disappeared.

The DfE still has to work out the 16-18 phase where some students are in the school sector, but more are in the further education sector. There still seems to be room for overlap or avoidance of difficult issues unless the protocol of responsibilities between the directorates is made clear.

One interesting side effect of all schools becoming academies would be the shift in financial year for all schools back to a unified position. However, the financial year would be totally uncoupled from the municipal year, but aligned to the higher education funding rounds.

This review helps sort out the framework for the ‘top’ tier. Now it remains to work out the framework for the middle tier. That will probably be more of a challenge.

Funding schools: how far to hypothecate?

Posted on February 11, 2022 by John Howson

No sooner do we have a National Funding Formula for schools than it starts to dawn on some people that’ equal’ shares may not be the best way to achieve the policy goal of levelling up outcomes. How funds are distributed to schools are key to education outcomes, and have been ever since the State mandated schooling as the default position for the education of children whose parents did not, could not, or would not make other arrangements.

At the heart of the debate about the distribution of funds are two key principles: equity and the identification of the point of decision on how to spend funds. For much of the past 100 years the issues around the degree of hypothecation of funds was centre stage. With the devolution of budgets to schools in the 1990s, this issue was replaced for a long period by the debate over how much cash should be allocated to schooling.

Of course, the problem of creating an education system where all may enjoy success meant that the issue of how funds were allocated didn’t entirely disappear from the political agenda. However, the simple view of a hard National Funding Formula approach that put the view that ‘equal means the same for all’ centre stage – except of course that pay differentials and London weighting meant that it was never as simple as some would have liked – gained supremacy in thinking, although there were always other exceptions such as Education Opportunity Areas.

Funding policy is now under scrutiny once again, with the national levelling up agenda taking centre stage in the political agenda around policymaking. This policy hasn’t been fully worked through in terms of what it means for education and the hypothecation agenda. I wrote in an earlier blog post about how you enforce retention payments to teachers if that is a mechanism to be used in the prosecution of levelling up. Mandate schools and provide a hypothecated grant?

This week there have been two helpful additions to help the discussions on the funding debate. The House of Commons library has published a research briefing, excellent, as always, on School Funding https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8419/CBP-8419.pdf

Teach First, the charity whose aims now extend well beyond just training teachers to work in schools with high levels of disadvantage pupils, has published a report around rethinking the Pupil Premium Rethinking pupil premium: a costed proposal for levelling up | Teach First The Pupil Premium is, of course, a great example of a semi-hypothecated grant to schools, in that its criteria for distribution are made clear, but its actual use by schools is not determined closely as part of the funding.

At present, different rules also apply as between maintained schools and academies and Academy Trusts in how funds distributed through the National Funding formula may be aggregated to cover central costs. This is an interesting area of the hypothecation debate that merits further discussion.

But in the end, decisions about the allocation of funds will always be in the hands of those that provide the funding. Local council taxpayers can be grateful that funding schools is no longer a part of their costs in urban areas. In the countryside, and where there are large bills for special needs transport, it is a different matter, as school transport costs are left to local council taxpayers to cover.

Military families missing out

Posted on February 2, 2022 by John Howson

Neither Oxfordshire nor Wiltshire were included in the published list of Education Investment Areas designated as part of the government’s levelling up programme. Package to transform education and opportunities for most disadvantaged – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) This may be important because these are two of the local authorities with large concentrations of military families attending schools within their areas.

The RAF will generally benefit because the whole of East Anglia and Lincolnshire are included in the list of authorities and that is where many RAF bases are located. The inclusion of Plymouth and Portsmouth will cover many naval families. However, the families of troops based on Salisbury plain at Tidworth and many other barracks in Wiltshire will still need to rely just upon the Service Children’s Premium and the Pupil Premium for extra support. The same is true for garrisons in Oxfordshire at Bicester, Abingdon and Didcot, and the RAF bases at Benson and Brize Norton.

Troops moving from Catterick in North Yorkshire or RAF bases in Lincolnshire to Wessex will find the support for their children’s education may reduce under these plans.

Now, our armed forces may be a small part of pupil population, but they do serve to highlight the fact that there are children that don’t stay in one place for their school life. Levelling up probably needs to be more than just about geography and picking areas off a map.

A geographical strategy is anyway easier to achieve when there is a coherent basis for local government areas. Sadly, that is not the case at the present time. Cambridgeshire includes the successful parts of Cambridge, although I acknowledge that like Oxford the whole of the city is neither affluent not without need for extra funding. Was Cambridgeshire included because it is part of a combined authority with a mayor, whereas Oxfordshire is one of the few remaining two-tier local government setups, with no unitary authority.

I wonder how Medway and parts of Cumbria feel looking at the list of Education Investment Areas? Do they feel that they have missed out?

As I wrote, in the previous post on this blog, the education measures will need to be backed up by hard cash to have any real effect. In terms of teaching staff turnover, TeachVac has provided a number of the Opportunity Areas with data about their local teacher labour markets and can do so for the new Education Investment Areas.

One thing is certain is that teaching cooking and healthy eating to secondary school pupils is going to need a rethink about staffing as within design and technology – a subject that attracts few to teaching these days – food technology is the most challenging discipline in terms of finding teachers anywhere in England.

Levelling up is as important today as ever for our schooling system. How far these moves will help is a matter for debate.

John Howson

Education and the numbers that affect what happens

Tag Archives: education funding

KS2: The London effect?

No High Needs Block data in NFF announcement

Special Needs – is nothing new?

STRB and teacher recruitment

Teacher Recruitment Crisis: is the end in sight?

Per Pupil Funding set to fall

To hypothecate or not?

Bye-bye ESFA: Hello ESFA

Funding schools: how far to hypothecate?

Military families missing out