Tag Archives: education funding

Fine the accountants

Posted on by
Reply

Both stand-alone academies and Multi Academy Trusts use private sector accountants to audit their accounts.  Each year, a number of MATs and academies are tardy in publishing their accounts at Companies House, where anyone can view the school or MATs handling of public money.

In my experience, it is the same MATs and schools that keep everyone waiting each year and this delay prevents any useful analysis of how schools are using their funds in particular geographical areas.

As usual, I am still waiting to see the accounts for seven sets of accounts for the schools in the geographical area where I track all non-community schools. These missing accounts are mostly the accounts from the same set of schools that were slow in appearing last year and the year before.

I think it is high time that the DfE, now responsibly directly for the funding of academies after the closure of the EFSA, takes some action to ensure all accounts, save those where there are legitimate queries, are posted by the end of January each year. That’s five months after the end of the accounting year, and should provide sufficient time for all accounts to be prepared.

How to deal with those accountants that don’t file by the required date: fine them. The notion of fining for late delivery of documents is well known and accepted. After all, HMRC will happily fine anyone not delivering their tax return by the due date, so why not fine private sector accountants for not filing these accounts on time.

The consequences would be that either the fine was passed on to the school or MAT or the accountants declined to continue handling the accounts in future years. Either way, the fine should help to instal financial discipline in those schools in the non-community part of the state school sector that are either being ignoring or possibly even flaunted the deadlines at present.

With the recent White Paper once again raising the spectre of all schools becoming academies – one wonders how foundation Schools view that prospect – installing financial discipline from day one should be something the National Audit Office needs to confirm with the DfE is not just a nice thing to have, but a necessity. The NAO might well decide to qualify the DfE’s accounts if it cannot see the accounts for all directly funded state schools within the prescribed time frame.

In my next post, I will consider how salaries for the top earners in MATs within one area have changed between the 2024 and 2025 accounts. With secondary schools now regularly advertising their headship with a starting salary of more than £100,000, and some on even more than £150,000, it is important to know whether Chief Executives of MATs, and executive headteachers are now regularly earning more than the Directors’ of Children’s Service in local authorities.

I guess that they are also earning more than the civil servants that have the ultimate power over the school sector. One wonders what should be the multiple between the salary of the lowest full-time worker in a school and the headteacher? In many case, it cases the multiple is now more than a factor of ten, between the lowest and highest paid staff members in a school: is this too great a gap?

The war: bad news for schools?

Posted on by
Reply

The longer the current conflict, centred around Iran, continues, the more anxiety there must be within the DfE. After all, the DfE is the second largest spending department, after spending on the NHS and Social Care. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) ranks as the third largest spending department.

Recent trends within the DfE have included increased expenditure on special needs, and post 16 schemes to reduce the number of NEETS. I assume there is also monitoring the implications of falling rolls in the school sector under way.

I guess that there might have been some hope that one trend – more spending on SEND – might be balanced by less spending on the core school grant as a result of falling rolls. By abolishing a separate High Needs Block, the additional SEND spending could disappear into the core grant, leaving schools to sort out the mess on the ground.

This is not the post to discuss the relationship between DfE and NHS spending on SEND, and how the 2014 Act, unless amended, could be used by parents to hobble school’s discretion on how they meet the education requirements of pupils with EHCPs, especially if the Tribunal Service remains as it currently is. Suffice to say, there will become a point where SEND funding starts to impact on the rest of the DfE’s budget that is, if the total spend doesn’t increase.

Digression aside, my main concern is the extent to which increased spending on defence could hit the DfE’s budget? Spending on schools’ accounts for the lion’s share of the DfE’s budget, and I cannot see how it can remain unaffected as spending on the MoD increases, as it now inevitably will do, however short-lived the current war is.

There are also pressures from within the school system as a result of the White Paper’s non-SEND initiatives to be taken into account. I don’t know whether anyone has worked out the full cost of every school becoming an academy. But replacing 150 with 160+ local authorities after local government reorganisation, with perhaps ten times than number of academy trusts won’t come cheap.

Using civil servants to administer the system will be more expensive than using local government officers. One only has to look at the £38mn it cost to run the EFSA, and the £14mn it costs to run the Teacher Regulation Agency to wonder whether anyone in Whitehall has done the maths on full academisation of schools?

However, it is the military situation that must be the real concern for schools. Let’s assume that going forward the MoD needs an extra £15bn per year in expenditure in order to meet is 5% target of government expenditure: possibly even more if conscription is again on the agenda, after being through ruled out during the 2024 election campaign.

Increase defence spending, and unless the government has spare revenue to play with, and it seems likely that other budgets will be hit. Ring fence SEND spending, and what might be the consequences?

As staffing is the biggest item in any school’s budget, in the end any further slowdown in spending may well leave schools facing a choice between cutting low paid non-teaching staff or high paid teachers, burdened with student loan debt.

So, what might we see.

MATs closing schools that cost more to run than they bring in from funding steams and ‘unofficial’ parent support. At present, any transport costs will be incurred by local authorities, so that won’t deter closures.

Schools axing courses that cost more to run than the share of pupil funding they generate. On the wider scale, this might affect small sixth forms. After all, these are often staffed by the most expensive teachers, and can be a financial drain on the resources for Key Stages 3 and 4.

Will MATs be more ruthless than local authorities when it comes to closing small sixth forms, because they have no councillors worried about re-election demanding a school retain its sixth from? This is likely to be a real issue for Reform in the south of England where 11-18 schools are the norm. If Reform want a return to selective schools that also will come at a price.

If SEND spending is ring-fenced, and demand for EHCPs for mental health issues continues to grow, at some point it will eat into the funding for other pupils. At what point will there be a pushback?

Of course, a quick war, and peace in the Middle East, plus a less bellicose Russia, might mean there will be no threat to funding for schools. And government income might rise to cover the extra spending. Who knows, but it is better to hope for the best, and plan for the worst.

If I use Pupi Teacher Ratios as a measure of what might happen, then the unwinding of the benefits of the peace dividend since the late 1990s might have a more profound effect on the primary school sector than on secondary schools, although my guess is that neither sector will be unaffected. (PDF) PTRS OVER TIME: A REVIEW OF PUPIL TEACHER RATIOS BETWEEN 1974 AND 2024 AND TWO PERIODS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RE-ORGANISATION PTRS OVER TIME: A REVIEW OF PUPIL TEACHER RATIOS

The other interesting question is what will happened to salaries, and how far the outcome of national salary discussions will fetter schools spending choices? Perhaps one for another blog to discuss in more detail.

White Paper: bad news for rural primary schools

Posted on by
Reply

Tomorrow, Monday, we will see Labour’s White Paper in full. For now, we have copious leaks and SEND and other matters, such as how to tackle the outcome gaps between the most deprived pupils and their more fortunate fellows either sitting alongside them or in other schools to whet our appetite.

The replacement of Free School Meals as a measure of deprivation has been long overdue, but it will be interesting see, as schooling moves from a local service to a national service, administered in a similar fashion to the NHS, whether the civil service will be any better than local politicians at managing the performance of the school system.

Making all schools academies will be the final nail in local government’s interest in schooling. Once SEND is handled nationally, it will just leave admissions, mainly on-line these days, to be removed from local management.

However, the changes already foreshadowed in the leaks mean that there will be winners and losers. Assuming that H M Treasury might fund some of the SEND changes, there is unlikely to be any new money to support schools to improve.

The present Funding Formula is heavily biased towards pupil numbers. Great when rolls are rising, but bad news for small schools when rolls fall. If the formula is altered to move more money towards schools with significant numbers of pupils not achieving expected standards, where will the cash come from?

Might small rural primary schools with good attendance and excellent results see their funding cut in real terms? If so, what are the consequences likely to be?  Trusts will be reluctant to keep schools that cost more to run than they bring in through funding open, and will have no incentive to do so. Afterall, any travel costs will be paid for from the local authority under present arrangements.

I can see the local government organisations saying that if local authorities don’t run schools, then they shouldn’t have to pay any transport costs. Taking £46 million off Oxfordshire County Council’s budget would pay for an awful lot of pothole repairs, not to mention bolstering other services.

For those local authorities currently receiving little funding from central government, removing schooling entirely from local government would be an unexpected bonus. On the other hand, there would, as with the NHS, be no local democratic accountability. Education rarely features during general elections.  

One bonus of a national school system is that the government might feel able to create a universal system for secondary schools, some 61 years after Circular 10/65 and on the 50th Anniversary of the 1976 Education Act.

Without democratic oversigh,t ignoring the 2006 rules about closing small rural primary schools will be much easier. Small one form entry faith schools in urban areas with good results have even less protection. It is worth studying the results for primary schools in Haringey to see the parts of the borough that might be winners and those that might be losers if funding doesn’t increase overall.

As someone that started teaching in Tottenham in 1971, when we had ‘areas of exceptional difficulty’ payments introduced into ‘Education Priority Areas’ it is interesting to see how stark the divide between schools on opposite sides of the railway line north from Kings Cross still remains.

So, will the government close that divide? But will it be at a cost to rural primary schools in Oxfordshire, my current home?

Trends in academy accounts

Posted on by
2

The 2024-25 accounts for academy trusts, covering the year up to the 31st August 2025, are now being posted at Companies House, for anyone to view. Not all Trusts have yet published their accounts. Some Trusts are large and complex, and others may not want to be in the first groups that might draw attention to their results.

This analysis is for 86 schools in one geographical area, and where the school has been in the Trust for at least two reporting periods. Two indicators are considered: the pay of the highest-ranking employee – often the Chief Executive, but in single academy trusts, normally it is the headteacher, and changes in declared reserves held by the school. This latter indicator is complicated, as some MATs pool reserves, while all others hold both reserves at the school level and for central services.

Salary Trends

So far, of the 13 Trusts reporting, there have been no really significant changes. The highest salary band reported band was £200,000-210,000, up by £10,000, the same increase of £10,000 as seen in 5 other trusts; one trust saw a £10,000 decrease; two trusts no change, and four increases in the £20,000 range. The lowest salary for the year was £100,000, for a trust with four schools.

Trusts with headquarters outside the geographical area tended to have higher salary bands for their highest paid employee than those headquartered in the local area. This might take into account the complexity of London weightings for salaries.

Changes in reserves

Here, two-year’s worth of data is available for 72 of the 86 schools in the area. The other 14 schools changed trusts, so the data for the two years is incomplete. Of the 72 schools with data for both years:

29 ended the 2025 reporting period with a deficit

43 ended with reserves

Of those schools in deficit at the end of the reporting period

14 increased their deficits over the year

5 schools went from surplus to deficit

Of schools with reserves

10 reduced the amounts of their reserves.

The other 33 increased their reserves.

The largest deficit reported in 2025 account, so far is £1,060,000 – an increase of £232,000 in one year, or more than 20%.

The largest reported surplus held by a school was £2,641,000 – up by £290,000 over the year. Another school in a MAT, but located outside the area reviewed, also had a balance of £2,400,000.

Comment

From the data on salaries, it seems that seven MATs had increases to their salary bands for the highest paid employee that were less than 10%; one MAT saw the incoming employee on a lower band than their predecessor. Five had increases in the band of the highest paid employee of more than 10%.

Four of the MATs surveyed paid their highest paid employee in a band above the salary of the local authority’s Director of Children’s Services. This is not surprising, since nationally, the highest starting salary for a headteacher in an advertised vacancy in 2026 has been £123,000.

On the issue of reserves, some schools are facing pressures while others are still adding to their reserves. I have always maintained that revenue funding should be spent in the year in which was provided, including up to 10% for a sensible reserve, based upon the profile of the past five years of expenditure where the reserve is not excessive.

Why do schools hold more than £2 million pounds of public money in their reserves? Schools in deficit, often seem to struggle to clear their deficit, and if they don’t attract pupils, then it is a challenge to ever return to a surplus without damaging the education of their pupils.

I will return to this topic when I have processed the data from the remaining MATs yet to file their accounts.

KS2: The London effect?

Posted on by
Reply

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.

2015/162024/25
higherhigherdifference
LAReadingReading
Waltham Forest15%44%29%
Redbridge19%45%26%
Westminster18%43%25%
Haringey20%43%23%
Newham18%41%23%
Hammersmith and Fulham24%46%22%
Luton11%33%22%
Merton22%44%22%
Barking and Dagenham15%37%22%
Enfield15%37%22%
Sutton25%47%22%
Hackney21%42%21%
Brent16%37%21%
Barnet24%44%20%
Bexley20%40%20%
Lewisham19%39%20%
Southwark19%39%20%
Slough19%39%20%
Tower Hamlets18%38%20%
Birmingham14%34%20%
Leicester11%31%20%
Trafford27%47%20%
Solihull20%39%19%
Hillingdon19%38%19%
Ealing18%37%19%
Wolverhampton14%33%19%
Barnsley13%32%19%
Thurrock13%32%19%
Doncaster11%30%19%
Camden23%42%19%
Greenwich22%41%19%
Croydon17%36%19%
Richmond upon Thames36%54%18%
Kingston upon Hull, City of15%33%18%
Kensington and Chelsea30%48%18%
Blackburn with Darwen13%31%18%
Walsall13%31%18%
Knowsley12%30%18%
North East Lincolnshire11%29%18%
Lambeth23%40%17%
Stockport22%39%17%
Warrington21%38%17%
Stockton-on-Tees16%33%17%
Bromley27%44%17%
Wandsworth25%42%17%
Harrow24%41%17%
Milton Keynes19%36%17%
Sandwell13%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

Tameside15%28%13%
Southend-on-Sea20%33%13%
South Gloucestershire20%33%13%
Telford and Wrekin19%32%13%
St. Helens18%31%13%
Rochdale14%27%13%
Portsmouth14%27%13%
Blackpool13%26%13%
Oldham13%26%13%
Rutland23%36%13%
Cheshire East22%35%13%
Cambridgeshire22%35%13%
Lancashire17%30%13%
Bedford16%29%13%
Cheshire West and Chester22%34%12%
Havering22%34%12%
Herefordshire, County of21%33%12%
Nottingham15%27%12%
Gateshead20%32%12%
Cornwall20%32%12%
Torbay20%32%12%
East Sussex19%31%12%
South Tyneside18%30%12%
Derbyshire18%30%12%
Suffolk18%30%12%
Swindon18%30%12%
Derby14%26%12%
Warwickshire23%35%12%
Oxfordshire23%35%12%
Gloucestershire23%35%12%
Southampton17%29%12%
Hampshire23%34%11%
Devon23%34%11%
Bristol, City of22%33%11%
North Somerset22%33%11%
Lincolnshire17%28%11%
Central Bedfordshire17%28%11%
County Durham20%31%11%
Calderdale20%31%11%
Shropshire20%31%11%
Sefton18%29%11%
Norfolk18%29%11%
East Riding of Yorkshire18%28%10%
Wiltshire23%33%10%
Darlington22%32%10%
West Berkshire25%34%9%
Bath and North East Somerset27%36%9%
Brighton and Hove26%35%9%
Northumberland21%29%8%
Isle of Wight16%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” 2025TOTENHAMOXFORD EAST
A35
B27
C23
D1818
E1717
F15
G15
H15
I1414
J1313
K1313
L13
M12
N1111
O1010
P99
Q9
R8
S8
T77
U77
V77
W77
X6
Y6
Z55
AA5
AB5
AC44
AD44
AE33
AF3
AG23
AH2
AI2
AJ00
AK0
total322193
schools2827
average11.57.1

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 by
Reply

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 by
Reply

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 22nd 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 by
Reply

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 by
Reply

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 21st century schooling system. Now there’s a thought for the ASCL Conference this weekend.

Per Pupil Funding set to fall

Posted on by
Reply

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.