Tag Archives: Education Select Committee

A Virtual School for those missing school?

Posted on by
2

The House of Commons Education Select Committee inquiry into SEND has been in existence for around six months. Such was the volume of evidence submitted to the inquiry that some of the evidence has only just been published. Among the submitted evidence published this week was that from Oxfordshire County Council. committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/137147/pdf/

The section of their evidence that interested me most was contained in paras 15-17 about the idea of a virtual school.

Online schooling

15. Oxfordshire County Council’s Virtual School, a service which supports children in our care with a suitable educational placement that meets their needs, has taught the council some valuable lessons in maintaining an educational presence for children.

16. Some children with SEND, especially those for whom education in a school or other education institution is not appropriate, are supported through an ‘Education Other Than At School’ (EOTAS) mechanism. EOTAS provision is usually intended to be short-term, with the goal of finding a more suitable school placement for the young person as soon as possible.

17. We believe it would be worthwhile for the government to explore the creation of a virtual school to support the needs of children with SEND, for whom education in a school setting is not appropriate. This would enable every child to remain on the roll of a school, maintaining funding and visibility for them, and continuing their education whilst a more appropriate long-term placement can be found. Such a school might also be appropriate for other children missing education, such as those arriving with EHCPs mid-year, when no immediate special school places are available. A virtual school would therefore be able to provide continuity of education.

This is an interesting idea that might merit some further discussion as it would clarify the role of the State in educating all children where the parents have entrusted their education to the State.

I wonder whether such a school might also be where excluded pupils could be enrolled if a new school or Alternative Provision has not been found for them. Unlike to present Virtual School for children in care that operates where children are on the role of an actual school, and provides additional support, the New VS would be an actual school, and could require virtual attendance twice a day to help with checks on progress and attendance.

Enrolment in such a VS would also ensure no child was missing school, as too often happens at present when pupils either arrive mid-year into a local authority or are excluded from a school with no new destination.

Such a virtual school might significantly reduce expenditure on private providers as well as ensuring parents did not have to complain to the Local Government Ombudsman that their child had fallen off the radar. Every child in the authority that parents want the State to educate would then be receiving an education every day of the school-year. The school would be free to offer after-school activities and to bring groups of its pupils together where learning in person was appropriate.

The aim should be to manage resources so that children pass through the VS on their way to a learning placement that is suitable for them.  As such, it should replace most packages of ‘education other than at school’ that were never originally designed to be long-term solutions, and too often leave pupils with no check on their development and limited group activities, even on-line where children cannot physically meet together.

Whether the VS could provide all the extras, such as work with animals or other individual sporting instruction in some EHCPs is an interesting area for discussion. Where it clearly aids learning it should be delivered and the volume generated by pupils at the VS should help provide more cost-effective services and coherent local authority wide provision. The VS might also be responsible for monitoring the learning outcomes for pupils where the local authority is paying for pupils to attend fee-paying schools or colleges.

RAAC and asbestos: threats to school buildings

Posted on by
2

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

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

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

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

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

2Condition of school buildings

The state of the estate

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

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

Here were two of the PAC recommendations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death of the arts

Posted on by
Reply

The grim news from the July data on recruitment to ITT postgraduate courses starting this autumn is that most arts subjects are recording offer levels below those of last year. Initial teacher training application statistics for courses starting in the 2023 to 2024 academic year – Apply for teacher training – GOV.UK (apply-for-teacher-training.service.gov.uk)

The 2022 recruitment round was the worst for many years, and while some subjects have recovered from the disastrous offer levels of last year, the arts subjects have continued their downward trend in offers in most cases. This is grim news for schools wanting to recruit for September 2024, as the data in the table below makes clear.

Subjects where offers are below the July 2022 and July 2021 levels

Art

Religious Education

Physical Education

Music

History

Subjects where offers are above the July 2022 abut below July 2021 levels

Languages

Mathematics

Computing

Chemistry

Business Studies

Subjects where offers are above the July 2022 and July 2021 levels

Physics

Geography

English

Design & Technology

Biology

Subjects where offers are below the July 2022 levels

Drama

Classics

‘Other’ subjects

Subjects in italics are those where it seems likely that the 2023 target will not be met even if ‘offers’ are better this year.

Both art and music are subjects where offers are down this year compared with 2022. In the case of art from 910 in July 2021 to just 478 this July. For music, the fall during the same period has been from 410 offers to just 224 offers this July. Drama is down from 364 offers last July to 275 this July. Offers at this level, even if all candidates turn up, will not produce enough trainees to meet the needs of schools next year.

The good news, such as it appears to be, is in subjects such as English, languages (other than classics) and geography. These are subjects where the level of applications has been large enough to allow offer levels to mean that the target should be met for the year.

However, a word of warning. Recruited numbers in four regions, including both London and the South East are below the number recorded in July 2022. Overall ‘recruited’ total is 3,395 down on July 2022, of 3,911. Also, those with ‘conditions pending’ are down by 124 on last year, creating a net loss across these two categories. There must, therefore be some uncertainty about the outcome of the recruitment round in terms of trainee numbers that will turn up in September.

Numbers of applicants in the youngest age categories are still below those for July 2022, whereas applications from candidates in the older age groupings continue to be above the levels seen in 2022.

The number of rejected applications has increased from 31,124 in July 2022 to 52,350 in July 2023. Lat year that represented 31.5% of applications. This July, it represented 40% of applications. Whether or not this increase is related to the origins of the applications is impossible to tell from the data. However, it would not surprise me if many of those rejected were in the ‘rest of the world’ category.

Barring any last-minute change next month, and with many school-based schemes not actively recruiting now, it seems likely that 2024 with be another grim year for schools recruiting teachers, especially, but not exclusively in some of the art subjects that the independent sector values more highly that the government seems to do.

The Education Select Committee: reflections on evidence sessions

Posted on by
Reply

After two evidence sessions of their inquiry into recruitment and retention by the House of Commons Education Select Committee there are a number of interesting themes that need teasing out in more detail during the summer recess. Teacher recruitment, training and retention – Committees – UK Parliament

On the topic of recruitment, I have thought of these issues, in no particular order:

Linking recruitment to need

There has been talk of ‘cold spots’ and ‘certain schools’ finding recruitment (and retention) more of a challenge in the evidence sessions, but the evidence base has been limited. There is more certainty over the subjects with a lack of recruitment, although the committee has not delved into the cumulative effect of years of under-recruitment in some subjects. How many schools, for instance lack a properly qualified teacher of physics? The DfE can provide that information from the School Workforce Census. Also, the providers could have said how many of the physics ITT graduates start work in the private school sector or the FE sector in sixth form colleges rather than in schools?

Teacher vacancies and Free School Meals | John Howson (wordpress.com)

Leadership turnover and Free School Meals | John Howson (wordpress.com)

The Select Committee should ask Ministers about their policy. Oxfordshire would provide an excellent case study of demand from 80 secondary schools, but limited ITT numbers across all subjects.

I did some analysis last Christmas that could from the basis for a national study A Christmas holiday read about Teacher Supply | John Howson (wordpress.com)

New graduate numbers

New young undergradues still remain the most important source of entrants into ITT. However, this age-group has been experiencing something of a demographic downturn that will, fortunately, reverse in a few years’ time.  Higher Education has compensated by enrolling more undergraduates in their 20s.

The implications for teaching of any change in the profile of new graduates needs to be understood, as does the relationship between the location of undergraduate courses in different subjects and entry into ITT. Again, physics makes an interesting case study. Some of the physics degree courses in London are not linked to a college with an ITT provider. Teach First can link with these colleges, but more could be achieved in the field of linking courses with ITT marketing programmes.

Applications and acceptances

The current DfE application process provides less data than the UCAS system it replaced. There are no monthly numbers around applications and offers by either gender or ethnicity making trends difficult to identify until outcome data are produced. This is an easy win for the committee to recommend a better dashboard on applications and offers. As the second panel identified, there are issues with discrimination in both ITT and teacher recruitment at all levels from classroom to head teacher’s study.

 All Lives Matter: But some need to matter more | John Howson (wordpress.com)

‘We need more black headteachers in our schools’ | John Howson (wordpress.com)

Few teachers from ethnic minorities outside London | John Howson (wordpress.com)

Training salary or bursaries?

Regular readers of this blog will know that I favour a training salary for all postgraduate entrants into teaching rather than the present confused, bursary; salary or no support shambles that changes on an annual basis. Could anyone image the Ministry of Defence telling the army to pay cadets at Sandhurst according to how easy it was to recruit to their corps? No support for cavalry regiments, but a big bursary for engineers? I cannot see that happening.

However, partly, I suspect because of the numbers, teaching has a muddled approach across the three routes:

Undergraduate

Postgraduate non-classroom

Postgraduate classroom

A training salary would at least make marketing simpler, and mean career changers would always be sure of an income. When introduced in the early 200s it produced an increase in interest in teaching.

The undergraduate route has been withering on the vine, and before looking at new routes such as undergraduate apprenticeships for graduate professions there should be an understanding as to whether the undergraduate degree has now replaced ‘A’ levels as the last level of pre-career entry qualification. If so, then the new route may not be successful.

Does the sector really wish to reinvent the pupil teacher role? And, will it largely attract those unable to afford the cost of a university degree?

The suggestion that different placements can affect costs for trainees needs to be investigated. In the past, placement costs were borne by providers to ensure a level playing field. The random nature of the travel costs makes them unfair for individual trainees to bear. I researched issue this for the former ATL in the 1990s on two separate occasions.

Employment based routes into teaching

Are we offering fewer employment-based routes into teaching than a decade ago? Teach First is now the dominant salaried route into teaching. School Direct (salaried) has failed as a route into the profession and graduate apprenticeships are in their infancy. Both need closer monitoring to see how they are being used across different sectors and subjects.

In 2009/2010 EBIT (employment-based routes) accounted for 5,800 trainees, according to the DfE census. In the 2022/23 ITT census there were 2,679 trainees on three salaried routes (590 School Direct Salaried; 759 apprenticeships and 1,330 Teach First). This would seem to suggest that either opportunities for career changers needing a salary to train as a teacher have declined by several thousand or the offer is no longer attractive enough to entice career changers into teaching.

Earlier this year, I wrote the following:

“Applications are being sustained by an increase in career changers. Candidate numbers in the age groups below 25 continue to fall, with just 4,027 candidates in the 21 or under age grouping. By contrast, this year there are already 600 candidates in the 50-54 age grouping compared with 449 in March 2022. The number of candidates recorded as over the age of 65 has increased from 12 in March 2022 to 25 this March! The bulk of the career changers seem likely to be men. The number in this group has increased from 6,525 in the March 2022 data to 8,037 this March. However, the number recruited has fallen from 562 to 419, perhaps indicating that many of these older men are in the group applying from overseas?” Teaching not attracting new graduates | John Howson (wordpress.com)

The mention of overseas applicants is important, as the 2023ITT application round has seen most of its growth in applications for ‘rest of the world’ and this has important implications for the outcome of the round if these applicants cannot obtain a visa, even if offered a place.

Some other issues

School there be subject quotas for the primary sector ITT numbers to ensure a spread of expertise?

Does the present application system discriminate against those that apply later in the recruitment round, and does that fact have implications for under-represented groups and their patterns of applications?

Should the DfE consider funding Recruitment Strategy Managers on a regional basis once more?

Do we need a unique job number to be better able to track vacancies?

With a largely female workforce should the level of departures each year for maternity leave be predictable and does the resignations total include those taking maternity leave?

And the big one – does the market model of placing teachers in schools work? Are we returning to an employ-driven model of teacher supply that existed as the dominant model before the Robbins report?

Evidence to Select Committee

Posted on by
Reply

The House of Commons Education Select Committee today published 28 pieces of evidence submitted to their inquiry into teacher recruitment and retention. My evidence was one of the pieces published. You can access it at: https://committees.parliament.uk/work/7357/teacher-recruitment-training-and-retention/publications/

The first oral evidence session with the teacher associations will be held next week.

This is the sixth inquiry into the topic by the Select Committee that I have submitted evidence to since penning my first piece to the inquiry in the 1980s about the number of inactive teachers in what was then known as the PIT (Pool of Inactive Teachers).

The current inquiry is quite wide in scope and the world has moved on since the call for evidence was launched in March. I hope that the SEND sector is not overlooked during the inquiry.

I have updated the index chart in the evidence to reflet the present position.

GroupITTNumber left% left
Art440-107-24.43
Science1505-1749-116.25
English1214-1281-105.52
Mathematics1467-1145-78.08
Languages652-866-132.82
IT304-672-221.05
Design & Technology372-1063-285.89
Business164-569-347.26
RE249-384-154.42
PE129538830.00
Primary12000622651.88
Music228-306-134.21
Geography523-531-101.53
History95030432.00
Source: TeachVac

The position is now much worse than in March, but regular readers of this blog would know that fact already. Schools looking for January appointments will really struggle in many subjects. The situation has moved beyond challenging into a crisis. TeachVac http://www.teachvac.co.uk may be able to help.

Home to School transport

Posted on by
Reply

What level of transport from home to school should the State provide for parents? At present, this is an area of policy that rarely seems to be reviewed. For instance, when the learning leaving age was raised to eighteen, the rules on free transport to school were not changed. As a result, many pupils that receive free transport up to age sixteen, and the end of Year 11, no longer qualify for free transport in Years 12 or 13, even if they remain at the same school.

Yes, some local authorities do pay for SEND transport for post-16 students, but it is not a requirement to do so. TfL still provide generous free transport for young people resident in London, although the Elizabeth Line beyond West Drayton to Reading isn’t included.

The question must be: if young people in London can qualify for free bus and tram travel, why must those living elsewhere in England depend upon local rules set by the upper tier local authority? The answer, of course, is that local authorities must fund the home to school transport budget, and it needs to compete against all other priorities, whereas in London, the transport authority, TfL, foots the bill for transport costs.  

Most authorities now only pay for transport over three miles (2 miles for pupils under eight, but above statutory school age) to the nearest school if selected first at the time of the admissions process. There may be different rules for selective secondary schools, and some authorities won’t pay for travel to these schools if located in the area of another authority despite the fact that most are now academies.

For instance, Essex County Council and Castle Point Unitary Authority state that:

Grammar (selective) school

Children from low income families qualify for school transport if they live 2 or more miles from the selective school.

School transport will also be provided if the selective school is closer than the nearest maintained school or academy and 3 miles or more away. School transport: Who qualifies for home to school transport – Essex County Council

This means that many parents have to pay to send a child to a selective school unless they qualify as a low-income family.

In rural areas there may not be bus services, and local authorities will only pay where a road is deemed unsafe due to traffic. Any alternative route less than three miles, even if an unlit footpath across fields, often doesn’t qualify for free transport unless an appeal panel is willing to go outside the rules.

In their 2023-24 budget, Oxfordshire has a figure of around £30 million for home to school transport, so it isn’t an insignificant issue for rural counties. The bulk of this was for transporting pupils to mainstream schools and not for SEND transport.

So here are some policy suggestions for discussion

  • Raise the current age level for transport to the same school from 16 to 18
  • Ensure SEND transport to both schools and colleges
  • Negotiate student fares with both bus and train operators as similar rates for same journey
  • Merge school transport with active travel policies to encourage car pooling or use of local community transport
  • Pay bike vouchers to encourage cycling to school
  • Review national guidelines on what constitutes ‘safe routes’ to exclude footpaths or bridleways for inclusion and only include roads
  • Create a national policy for travel to selective schools funded by central government as these schools are no longer ’local’ schools
  • Prevent state schools from running their own buses
  • Ensure any child offered a paid for place has the place available for a whole school year.
  • Amend the mileage rule to cover all sites for split site schools

The present distance rules were set many years ago. Is it still acceptable in this modern age to use a three-mile limit or should it be reduced?

Finally, how should any changes be paid for? Should there be a national scheme, as for the bus pass for the elderly, and should the rules be more favourable for London than for rural areas, especially where house prices may be more expensive in the rural areas than in London, and salaries don’t take this into account?

Please sue the comments section to discuss.

Are you paying too much to advertise a teaching vacancy?

Posted on by
Reply

The most read blog post this month is the one from 2020 entitled ‘How much should it cost to advertise a vacancy?’ Teacher Recruitment: How much should it cost to advertise a vacancy? | John Howson (wordpress.com) So far, yesterday’s 10th birthday post comes in second highes, with 20 views as against the vacancy post that reviewed the publication of the tes company accounts for 2019.

Today, the tes group, now entirely shorn of it print heritage, released its accounts for 2021-22 to August 2022. The company, fronted by its UK management, is ultimately owned by Onex Partners V, part of the Canadian ONEX Group of equity investors. Their third quarter report for 2022 identifies an investment of $98 US in the Tes Global (“Tes”), an international provider of comprehensive software solutions for the education sector  18d46e0 f-a5b9-435a-a039-9849ef723683 (onex.com) page 9

So, our major teacher recruitment platform, now offering a much wider staff management service to schools, increased its UK (mainly England) turnover from £54 million to £68 million in the year to August 2022. How important both staff management and the UK are to the profit of ONEX can be determined form the following figures

Turnover             2022                     2021

UK                        £68.2 mn          £54.0 mn

Europe                £  2.9 mn             £ 2.6 mn

Rest of World     £  9.0  mn           £ 9.0 mn

Income

Staff

Management    £61.2 mn          £56.5  mn

All activities      £80.2 mn           £66.1  mn

TES accounts – see link above page 29

So, in the last school year the tes took £68 million pounds from UK schools, the bulk of the money for recruitment and staff management by subscriptions from schools. 84% of staff management revenue came from subscription income and, as the accounts note (page 2) this was a 26% increase in revenue, presumably as more schools and Trusts migrated to subscription packages from point of sale purchase of advertising. The profit for the operating year was £28.7 million compared with £2.3 million the previous year that was badly affected by covid.

The group values its software at £46 million. That leaves me wondering what the book value of TeachVac’s simple but effective job matching service should be? Perhaps the £3 million suggested by our advisers is a little on the mean side.

TeachVac http://www.teachvac.co.uk costs less than £150,000 a year to operate. Being generous, it might cost £500,000 if operating on a similar cost model to the tes. The DfE job site probably costs a bit more, but we don’t actually know how much. The question for schools, MATs and the education sector is ‘How much of the money you are spending with the tes is for the downstream activities on staff management and how much for the job bord and matching service, and is it value for money?

Assume only 10% is for the matching, that could be £5-6 million of the subscription income after allowing for the tes turnover on Hibernia and other activities. TeachVac was established to demonstrate to the sector the cost-effective nature of modern technology over the former print advertising methods of recruitment. Readers can make up their own minds over value for money when comparing the £500 annual subscription to TeachVac that will reduce as more schools sign-up, and the cost of a subscription to tes.

History and headship

Posted on by
Reply

Sometimes when searching the web for something another link is thrown up. Today, I rediscovered this piece I wrote for the Education Select Committee way back in 1998, nearly a quarter of a century ago.

I have only included just the first part here, but the whole piece can be read at House of Commons – Education and Employment – Report (parliament.uk) and reveals how useful a good archive policy is for future historians. Worth noting that even in 1998 I was already using the term Chair not Chairman.

Memorandum from Mr John Howson, Education Data Surveys Ltd

THE ROLE OF HEADTEACHERS

LEADERS MUST BE ABLE TO MANAGE, BUT NOT ALL MANAGERS ARE LEADERS

  1. The intention of the House of Commons Select Committee on Education and Employment to consider the role of headteachers is welcomed.

The impact of headteachers on their schools

  2. There is no doubting the important role that a headteacher plays in the life of a school. As the leading professional, the headteacher has a strategic role to play in the success of the school. Just as successful companies, hospitals, regiments and governments function more effectively with strong leadership, so the same is true of schools.

  2.1 Academic studies both here and elsewhere suggest that successful leadership is a combination of situational and personal leadership skills. That is matching the abilities of the individual to the task in hand. One issue with heads is that, as they are generally appointed for an indefinite period, a change in the situation a school faces may require a change in the skill mix needed. This may result in the current head of the school under performing. This problem can also be observed in the corporate sector. Fixed term renewable contracts would offer a solution to this problem but would come with a price tag attached. The loss of tenure would require additional rewards for the additional risks to be accepted.

  2.2 In the early work of the National Education Assessment Centre, a joint venture between Oxford Brookes University and the Secondary Heads Association, it became clear that successful heads need a clear set of educational values. The values should underpin their work and heads must also recognise how to put their values in to practice. For instance, timetabling is not a mechanical “value free” activity. The classes a newly qualified teacher is asked to teach may determine how long they stay in the profession.

The nature of the head’s task

  3.1 There is a popular belief that any competent manager could run a school just as they could any other business. This view muddles up the requirement for professional knowledge with the need for operational support and strategic direction. It is particularly important to understand this issues as the nature of the head’s role has changed during the past decade. It has been transformed from that of just a leading professional to a multi-functional role encompassing the management of education service delivery within a highly fragmented marketplace.

  3.2 Whilst schools are about learning it is right that they should be led by a chief executive with an understanding of the practice of education and a vision to promote the development of the school. It is also right that the head should be expected to justify the direction the school is taking and account for its improvement to non-educationalists. The governing body and particularly its chair serve as the first point in the chain of accountability. In that sense the often discussed comparison between the head as a managing director and the chair of governors as a non-executive Chair of the Board has some merit as an exemplar. In the most recent edition of “Management Today”, the journal of the British Institute of Management, an editorial headed “Yes, the public sector does manage” suggests that “it was time conventional businesses looked again at the abilities of those managers whose skills have been forged in the glare of the public sector”.

  3.3 There are, however, unfortunate side effects of carrying any industrial metaphor too far. Western management theory for too long was based upon scientific principles that resulted in hierarchical structures. These may have been appropriate for a factory environment but were not suitable to professional organisations where rigid structures make team working difficult. The introduction of newer management theories during the 1980s and 1990s has resulted in a fresh look at organisational theory. Teamwork is acceptable with the leading professional being seen as “primus inter pares” with their colleagues rather than at the top of a pyramid. The term “Senior Management team” is now common in the educational leadership literature and normal in adverts for senior staff posts. This approach is not without its risks since it does not remove the need for a leadership function; it just changes the manner in which it operates.

  3.4 The STRB workload survey in 1996 reported on the extent to which heads are able to teach. Conventional wisdom is that the larger the school the less a head will be able to teach. Overall the Study (Table A2) showed primary school headteachers either teaching or undertaking associated tasks such as marking and lesson preparation for an average of 10.6 hours a week. Secondary heads spent on average 6.8 hours a week on such tasks. As a percentage of their working weeks this represented 18.9 per cent of the primary school head’s weeks and 11.1 per cent of the secondary head’s week. However, both heads had longer working weeks than did most other teachers. Primary heads worked on average 55.7 hours a week and secondary heads 61.7 hours. These totals compared with primary classroom teachers who worked 50.8 hours and secondary classroom teachers who worked 48.8 hours. When compared with a similar 1994 study also conducted by the STRB both primary and secondary heads seemed to be working longer hours; up from 55.4 to 55.7 for primary heads and up from 61.1 to 61.7 for secondary heads.

  3.5 The nature of the task of headship must be set against the context that schools operate in. For much of the past thirty years schools have been faced with a period of constant change. During most of the past decade a declining resource base has accompanied this change. DfEE statistics show the average unit of funding per full-time secondary pupil fell from £2,400 in 1990-91 to £2,290 in 1995-96 based on adjusted figures (DfEE Education and Training Statistics for the UK 1997—Table 1.3). In the same period funding per full-time primary pupil rose slightly from £1,590 to £1,690.

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.

More cash likely; but please don’t forget the FE sector

Posted on by
Reply

The House of Commons Education Select Committee has today published the report of their inquiry into funding in schools and further education. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmeduc/969/96903.htm#_idTextAnchor000

It is worth reporting their key proposals in full in the light of the excellence of the Report.

  • urgently address underfunding in further education by increasing the base rate from £4,000 to at least £4,760 (amounting to around £970 million per year), rising in line with inflation;
  • increase school funding by raising the age-weighted pupil unit value;
  • increase high needs funding for special educational needs and disabilities to address a projected deficit of at least £1.2 billion, and ensure any funding uplift takes proper account of the costs of providing Education, Health and Care plans up to the age of 25;
  • implement the full roll-out of the National Funding Formula as soon as feasible; make the various funding formulae more forward-looking and less reliant on historical factors; and investigate how best to account for the individual circumstances of outliers;
  • develop an official statistics publication for school and college funding to provide greater clarity on the data and trends;
  • grant Ofsted the powers to conduct inspections at MAT level, and require MATs to publish more detailed data on their financing structures;
  • ensure all eligible students attract Pupil Premium and overcome existing barriers to automatic enrolment as a matter of priority;
  • secure from the Treasury the full amount of estimated Pupil Premium money that has not been claimed because students did not register for free school meals, and allocate this money to disadvantaged children;
  • extend Pupil Premium to provide for 16–19 year olds; and
  • set out the timetable for providing apprenticeship transport subsidies, as per the Government’s manifesto commitments.

It is good that further education tops the list, even though it is school funding that has made the headlines. The Committee concluded that

… total school spending per pupil fell by 8% in real terms between 2009–10 and 2017–18. Per pupil funding for 2019–20 is expected to be similar to 2011–12 levels. Teachers, unions and parents have described to us in detail the scale of the impact this has had on children and young people, and on those working in the education sector.

Further education has been hit the hardest. Participation in full time further education has more than doubled since the 1980s, yet post-16 budgets have seen the most significant pressures of all education stages. Per student funding fell by 16% in real terms between 2010–11 and 2018–19 – twice as much as the 8% school funding fall over a similar period. This funding gap is the result of policy choices that now need to be addressed urgently. The social justice implications of the squeeze on further education colleges are particularly troubling, given the high proportion of disadvantaged students in these institutions.

It is a shame that these two paragraphs were not reversed in order, to ensure that FE funding issues were fully recognised. This is not to belittle the crisis in school funding, but to emphasise that funding in FE, and for the 16-8 age group that affects both sectors is in a state of real crisis.

The idea from the Committee for a ten year plan for funding, while headline grabbing, is unlikely to find favour with The Treasury, and would seem to be unrealistic in the context of a government that cannot even manage a three year financial settlement this year.

Finally, it is interesting that this report appeared on the same day that ministers appear to have accepted the evidence of a need to increase public sector workers’ pay, at least where they are review bodies. Noise in the media that schools may also receive extra funding also suggests a degree of realism now inhabit Sanctuary Buildings but, please ministers, don’t forget the FE sector: their needs should be first in the queue for additional funds.