Tag Archives: history

Are London schools overfunded?

Posted on by
1

Let me be clear the answer is, of course they are not. However, as my previous post showed, there were significant differences in exclusion and suspension rates in the latest DfE data between many London boroughs and other local authorities across England. Do better funded schools exclude fewer pupils? Part 2 | John Howson with London borough having some of the lowest levels of both exclusions and suspensions.

This discrepancy between London and the rest of England, prompted me to explore the data at a regional level on two different factors: ethnicity and Free School Meals. At some point, it might be interesting to combine these two factors, but for now, they are treated as separate factors. This post deals with pupils eligible for Free School Meals. I hope, in a later post, to consider the data about ethnicity, where the are significant differences between different ethnic groups.

Firstly, here is the table for outcomes for entitle pupils for Free School Meals across primary, secondary and special school sectors.

Free School Meal – entitled pupils 2024/25 All school sectors

London stands out as the lowest rate for both exclusions and suspensions of any region in England. Permanent exclusions in the North East are more than four times higher than the rate in London, and even suspensions are more than four times higher than in the London region.

Of course, London schools may use other sanctions, such as in-school suspensions, but the differences do seem stark between the regions, with London schools using less than half the rate of suspensions of schools across any other region.    

In terms of pupils not entitled to Free School Meals, the differences between London and the rest of the regions are less stark.

Free School Meal – non-entitled pupils 2024/25 All school sectors

However, London still has a ‘suspension rate’ of less than half of that in the three regions with the highest rate of suspensions. Permanent exclusion rates for pupils not eligible for Free School Meals are generally very low across England, but, even so, London, along with the South East still had the lowest rate of permanent exclusions in 2024/25.

Free School Meal – non-entitled pupils 2024/25 Primary school sector

London doesn’t quite have the lowest permanent exclusions in the primary sector for pupils not entitled to Free School Meals: the rate in the south East is 0.01 better than in London. However, London does have the lowest rate for suspensions.

Free School Meal – entitled pupils 2024/25 Secondary school sector

Even with secondary school pupils entitled to Free School Meals, London has both the lowest rate of suspensions and of permanent exclusions o any region in England. Again, whether this is as a result other in-school measures, better staffing because of funding, or some other reasons isn’t discernible for the data.  

However, it will be interesting to consider the data for ‘ethnicity’ where London is one of the more diverse regions of England. This is because some London boroughs have low percentages of pupils on Free School Meals.

Does the funding of schools on a model of average salary funding model, with an additional London weighting in the National Funding Formula play any part in this data? For instance, does London employ more new teachers at below average salary rates.

Going forward, how will falling rolls affect the finances of schools in London and, hence, the possible rate of suspensions and exclusions in future years?

Do better funded schools exclude fewer pupils? Part 2

Posted on by
3

Earlier this week the DfE published the 2024-25 school-year data about temporary suspensions and permanent exclusions by schools. Release home – Suspensions and permanent exclusions in England – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK

The good news is contained in the headlines:

The rate of suspensions in the 2024/25 academic year was 10.88 (equivalent to 1,088 suspensions for every 10,000 pupils). This is a decrease from 11.31 in 2023/24. There were 913,000 suspensions in 2024/25, a decrease of 4% from 955,000 in 2023/24.

The rate and number of permanent exclusions also decreased from 2023/24 to 2024/25

The rate of permanent exclusions in the 2024/25 academic year was 0.12 (equivalent to 12 permanent exclusions for every 10,000 pupils). This is a decrease from 0.13 in 2023/24. There were 9,900 permanent exclusions in 2024/25, a decrease of 9% from 10,900 in 2023/24.

As the data are per 10,000 pupils, the outcomes are not affected by falling pupil rolls. However, since falling pupil numbers have yet really impacted on the secondary school sector, where most pupils are excluded or suspended, I wouldn’t have expected falling rolls to have had an impact in 2024-25.

A more interesting questions is whether funding for schools plays any part in the ability of schools to retain pupils rather than suspend or exclude them. Answering this question is slightly more complex than it might be because not all schools may behave in the same manner. for instance, Oxfordshire, a county I know well, has a higher rate of temporary suspensions, where it ranked 83 worst out of 154 local authorities in the 2024-25 data, compared with a ranking of 11th best of the 154 authorities for permanent exclusions.

However, as I have shown before, London schools are well funded compared with schools outside the capital. Thus, without a deliberate local policy to try to reduce either exclusion and suspensions, or indeed both, by schools outside the capital, it might be expected that London local authorities might rank as authorities with the lowest percentages of exclusions and suspensions.

The data for the rankings of London authorities in both 2023-24 and 2024-25 are shown in the table.

NUMBER OF LONDON BOROUGHS IN THE TOP 35 RANKED LOCAL AUTHORITIES
SCHOOL YEAR PERM EXCLUSIONS TEMP SUSPENSIONS
202324 19 27
202425 16 28

The figures for both years are impressive, with 28 of the London boroughs in the top 35 local authorities for the lowest temporary suspension per 10,000 pupils. However, this is not a new trend. In a previous post last year, I wrote the following:

As ever, I am struck by the funding issue. London, the best funded part of England has some of the lowest rates for exclusion and suspensions. There are 17 London boroughs in the list of the 25 local authorities with the lowest rate of suspensions in 2023/24, and 19 in the similar list for secondary exclusions. In the list of ten local authorities with the highest rates of exclusion are five authorities in the North East. I think that there may be something in this data that needs further exploration, especially as I would expect teacher recruitment to be easier in the North East than in London. Do better funded schools exclude fewer pupils? | John Howson

Once again, in the latest data, local authorities  in the north East fare badly, with five in the ten lowest rankings for permanent exclusions, and six in the ten lowest rankings for temporary suspensions.

Many London schools also have the benefit of Teach First in addition to their DfE funding. Even though they have to pay towards the Teach First trainees, the extra support is possibly another reason why London schools perform so well on this measure.

I wonder whether this issue is a concern to our incoming Prime Minister in view of the rankings for some local authorities in the north West of England.

Can we make savings in our school system?

Posted on by
Reply

We all know that government finances are tight, and with both defence and the NHS on the lookout for more cash to spend, the Labour government has a challenging time ahead if it doesn’t want to raise taxes. Welfare reform is a big issue, but the increase in the number of pensioners, and especially older pensioners, together with an increasing number of young NEETs provides a real challenge for any government when allocating priorities for the taxes it can raise.

Before looking at three possible areas for savings in the school system, here is a suggestion for attacking the NEET problem. Every school should offer one apprenticeship for every 25 pupils. Smaller schools should be encouraged, but not required to take on at last one apprentice.

This scheme might create perhaps 20,000 new jobs that offered real work to those currently unemployed. I would have paid for the scheme both by unused Apprenticeship Ley cash returned to the Treasury, and by using the dormant assets funds for this much more defined scheme than for the recently announced ‘Every Child Can’ programme that seems a good intention but won’t necessarily reduce the number of NEETs.

Now for my ideas about efficiency savings. There are three areas where I think a national strategy could reap dividends:

Small Sixth Forms

Small Schools

MATs numbers and costs

Earlier this year, I wrote a post on this blog about small sixth forms, and their results. This was based upon an analysis of ‘A’ Level results for one year in one local authority area, where all secondary schools are academies. Are small sixth forms a good idea? | John Howson

Wit the prospect of a period of falling rolls, a national strategy for post-16 education might be unpopular with schools and teachers, but might pay dividends in reducing expenditure in this sector.

Falling school rolls also offers the opportunity to take another look at small schools.  I know that overheads have been brought down by creating executive heads for several schools, and allowing primary schools to open nursery classes, but could a strategic look at the school estate provide significant savings? Of course, such an approach would bring the government into direct conflict with both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church.

The third saving would be achieved by doing away with the dual system of local authority and academy schools, and returning to a single system of governance for schooling. I would prefer a school system with local democracy at its heart, but even an NHS style MAT managed system ought to capable of saving lots of cash compared with the present shambles.

I looked up a series of MAT accounts for 2024-25 in one authority area and estimated spending of nearly £28 million on a range of services.

000s of £sSpend
2158LEGAL
446ACCOUNTANCY
64PROF FEES
1569INSURANCE
1021GOVERNANCE
2211RAISING FUNDS
5196OTHER SUPPORT COSTS
14241OTHER COSTS
932EDUCATION CONSULTANCY

As the DfE already has the data, they will know how much could be saved just on governance if there were no more than five MATs in each local authority, and legal and accountancy services were purchased from the public sector. Completely rationalising the governance of the school sector should save a nit insignificant amount of cash.

Sadly, I think there is little chance of any significant savings under the present government.

Falling rolls in London: much worse than the rest of England

Posted on by
1

In my last post on this blog, I looked at the worsening of primary PTRs across much of the DfE’s ‘Inner London’ area. Falling Rolls: Is the funding formula making matters worse? | John Howson

This post looks how ‘Inner London boroughs have fare compared with the rest of England over those three years?

I think it is fair to say that London as a whole really has seen a significant downturn in primary pupil numbers. There are 22 local authorities where primary pupil numbers as published by the DfE have reduced by 5% or more between 2023/24 and 2025/26. Of these, 13 are London boroughs, and six – seven if Newham is included – are Inner London boroughs.

Seven of the top 10 places for the largest percentage decline in primary pupil numbers are filled by London boroughs. The other three places are taken by the Isle of Wight, Rutland and Torbay, three of the smallest unitary authorities in England.

Birmingham, Manchester and Leicester are the only large cities in the table. They fill three of the four bottom places for local authorities with a decline in pupil numbers of five per cent or more, along with Hillingdon in West London.

At the other end of the table, there are few London boroughs with less than a two per cent decline in their primary pupil populations.


London boroughs at this end of the table seem to be mostly outer London boroughs on the fringe of the metropolitan area. By contrast, there are seven county councils in the list of lowest declines in pupil numbers. This number increases to eight, if the Staffordshire figure, of an increase in pupil numbers, is correct.

The London boroughs will have the numbers in reception for each year, and will know how much worse the decline is likely to become over the next few years. More school closures look inevitable unless the funding model is changed to protect schools with declining rolls.

Not to protect the school estate in London is to assume that there will never be an upturn in pupil numbers. In cities, closing schools and selling off the site for housing means that in any upturn land may not be available for any new schools needed for the extra pupils. This is where thinking for the longer-term is important. During the last downturn of this size, most schools in London remained open, although some, such as Stamford Hill Infant and Junior School in Haringey, where I attended in the 1950s, did eventually close. Interestingly, the one form entry St Anne’s Church of England Primary School, close to Stamford Hill School that wasn’t actually in Stamford Hill, is still open.

However, this is not the post to discuss whether or not, in a more secular society, faith run schools should be closed where an alternative non-faith school can absorb the pupils. But this is an issue to debate, especially in urban areas.

In villages, the church-run school may still be the only school available, and that raises a much larger question about who should run state funded schooling? As the Wesleyan Methodists put it when faced by the 1902 Act, and decisions on whether to open state-funded secondary schools; are our teachers, teachers of children or teachers of Methodist children?

School funding: MATs and local government reorganisation

Posted on by
Reply

One interesting anomaly thrown up by the division of the 1974 shire counties into more and smaller unitary authorities, is how schools funds will be handled following the break-up of the former county councils. Local government functions around education were an upper tier authority responsibility under the 1974 local government reforms. Some county boroughs and towns that lost control over schooling in 1974, including Oxford City, where I live, never accepted this loss of responsibility, and are looking forward to becoming an upper tier authority once again, this time as a unitary council – effectively a county borough under a new designation.

Much has changed in the governance of schooling since 1974, and local authorities, despite winning a small but important battle over control of in-year admissions in Clause 52 of the recently passed Act of Parliament, have far less direct involvement in schooling than in the past, and certainly than in 1974.

One interesting issue in terms of loss of control over schools is encapsulated in the supplementary question set out below. I asked the question in September 2018 to the then Conservative Cabinet member on Oxfordshire County Council.

Councillor Howson had given notice of the following question to the Cabinet Member of Children’s Services

“Could you list the revenue balances for all maintained primary schools in Oxfordshire at the end of the 2017/8 financial year and show what percentage of revenue income the balance represents and how the percentage has changed since the end of the previous financial year, as well as the latest available number of pupils on the school roll?”

The Cabinet Member replied:

“Please find below the information required for all maintained primary schools in Oxford. This list includes the primary schools maintained as at 31 March 2018 and the data used for the number on roll is at October 2017.”

Supplementary:  Lord Agnew, the Minister of State told Auditors of Multi Academy Trusts (MATs) and committees that they may approve the virements of cash between schools in a Multi Academy Trust or a Multi Academy Committee.  Is the Cabinet Member prepared to ask Multi Academy Trusts or Committees in Oxfordshire not to take money from one school to support another and especially with those Multi Academy Trusts with Headquarters outside Oxfordshire, not to transfer money away from any school in Oxfordshire because we have been a member of the F40 Group and it would be unfair if money was taken from a school in Oxfordshire to support a school in a much better funded part of the Country.  If MATs won’t agree with this, would the Cabinet Member be prepared to write to the Secretary of State, asking for the same virements arrangements that are available to schools in MATs to be available to the State schools and stand-alone academies.”

The Cabinet member responded that she would be very happy to support that as Oxfordshire money should be for Oxfordshire Schools and anything she could do to support that she would be happy to undertake.

Why is this important? Take the example of Surrey County Council, now divided into two unitary councils: East and West Surrey. I guess that some MATs will have schools in both of the new council areas. Under existing rules, even if funding factors are different between schools in the two new authorities, even allowing for similar basic funding under the National Funding Formula for schools, the MATs can move resources between the different authorities.

Such movement is not possible for non-academy schools, even within a council area, let alone between areas. Ther e might not be much difference in surrey, but compare two secondary schools – one in say, in Henley in east Oxfordshire, firmly part of the South East region, and another secondary school in say, Swindon, in the South West region. Both are in the same MAT. Should funds be allowed to be switched between these schools by the MAT? (Note: this is a hypothetical example to illustrate the point)

It has become more of a challenge to understand whether academy trusts do move funds between schools because of the increasing use of pooled reserves in MAT accounts, as opposed to individual school balances, the purpose of my original question way back in 2018.

Local authorities may now be able to create an academy trust and encourage – it cannot seemingly compel – the maintained schools to join the new trust. One wonders why schools would do so if there was a risk of losing complete control over their budgets?

This issue about control over school funds is yet another example of a schooling system lacking coherence and vision, and a government that has missed a great opportunity to demonstrate that it understands the need for coherent and rational planning for the school system as a whole.

The NHS, centrally controlled since 1948 is currently undergoing yet another reorganisation to save money, and improve its effectiveness. I fear the school system in England will end up in the same mess of piecemeal reorganisations if there is not both adequate local oversight and a rationale operational model.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026

Posted on by
Reply

Hurrah for Section 61 and 62 of this new Act of Parliament. These two sections extend control over in-year admissions by local authorities to include academies. This has been achieved by inserting new clauses in the existing legislation, in order to widen the reach from just non-academy schools, historically controlled by local authorities, to now include academies and, I assume, free schools.

Regular readers will know that I started a campaign for this change way back in 2017, after I discovered how long it was taking to place children taken into care in a new school on some occasions, if that school was an academy. See Support ‘Looked After’ young people’s education | John Howson and Don’t forget Jacob | John Howson along with various other posts over the years on this blog.

The previous Children’s Commissioner also campaigned on this issue, and I raised it in November 2024 in questions to the Minister of State at the DfE when he spoke to the ADCS conference in Liverpool that year.

I hope the relevant sections of the new Act will be swifty enacted, rather than just sitting on the statute book.

There is then the issue of selective schools and children that would have attended them if taken into care before the selection process took place.

I hope that local authorities with selective schools in their area will ensure that such children are able to be placed in such schools. After all, a child should not go from the top set in a comprehensive school to a school that will not stretch their abilities to the full.

Now that education is expected of all up to eighteen, it is also important to discuss whether local authorities should have similar powers over the 16-18 age-group and education? This would include further education colleges and the 14-18 sector and studio schools and UTCs that might be a bit of anomaly under some readings of the new clauses in the 2023 Act? Hopefully, some one will tell me that I am wrong on this point.

Here is Section 62

62Power to direct admission: extension to Academies

(1) In section 96(8) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (schools subject to local authority powers to direct admission of individual pupils), for “a maintained school” substitute “—

(a)a maintained school, or

(b)an Academy school, other than one specially organised to make special educational provision for pupils with special educational needs.”

So, my thanks to all that have made this change come about. It has taken too long, but hopefully it will help to reduce the break in schooling for those taken into care that have to move school because of the distance of their new placement from their existing school.

There is much else in the Act to welcome, but where is the Curriculum Review and the need to teach citizenship now the government ahs reaffirmed its intention to reduce the voting age from 18 to 16?

Will teachers vote to take industrial action?

Posted on by
1

The BBC are running a story that suggests a teacher association: the NEU will ask its members about whether they support industrial action that could, presumably, include striking and closing schools? Teachers in England move towards striking over pay – BBC News

My guess is that their members will vote for action: at least in the secondary schools. Whether the larger number of NEU members in primary schools will do so, might be more uncertain. Here’s a link to an early post of this blog, way back from February 2013 February | 2013 | John Howson about what happened then.

Now, we live in different times: a Labour government; many years of pay freezes and pay rises below those in the private sector, but two relatively generous recent settlements, and the possibility of a three-year deal in even more challenging times.

Now factor in, falling rolls leading to job uncertainty in many primary schools, better recruitment to lower targets for new teachers, the need for increased spending on defence and welfare, and an electorate that will judge the government on the length of NHS waiting lists rather than what happens in schools, and the balance between expressing concerns by voting for industrial action, and actually taking action sometime in the autumn, is as the saying goes, a ‘whole different kettle of fish’.

My bet is, shake the big stick now, but think carefully about strike action in the autumn. Or perhaps persuade the government to tweak the pay offer, when it comes from the pay review body, so that both sides can claim victory.

It is interesting that this story is running 100 years after the only real General Strike in British history. This is an anniversary that, unlike Sir David Attenborough’s century, has been largely ignored by the media. I guess nobody wanted to drag it up during a period of local and state elections across the United(!) Kingdom.

One interesting fact from Thursday, is that Labour lost control of Haringey Council. They did so in the 1968 local government debacle. In that period of two-party politics, to the Conservatives. This time the outcome is more complicated. In 1968, the year of revolutions across Europe, Labour in government didn’t sack the Prime minister. Indeed, Harold Wilson led the Party into the 1970 general elections: a much closer race than the 1968 results might have predicted.

The Haringey result is interesting to me, as it meant that in 1971, I started work as a teacher in Tottenham under a Conservative administration. I don’t recall much changing when, in 1972, Labour regained control of the borough. Now the remainder of that decade was a turbulent time in British politics and not only the teachers, but also non-teaching staff. They took industrial action, leading eventually during the ‘Winter of discontent’ in 1979, to all Haringey’s schools being closed, not by the teachers, but by the caretakers going on strike. The Labour administration did not expect anyone, even church schools, to try and break that strike.  These days, with the internet, and remote schooling commonplace, such an outcome in terms of teaching and learning might be much less likely.

For a discussion of the effects in 1979 see my posts from 2020  March | 2020 | John Howson COVID-19 PM’s Suez? | John Howson and The State cannot just abandon children | John Howson and especially from February 2020 Closing schools, but not stopping education | John Howson

Is there a leadership crisis in England’s state schools?

Posted on by
Reply

First, a health warning: the percentages of schools re-advertising a head teacher vacancy reported in this post will probably not be the final figure by the end of the current school year. This is because the 289 first advertisements recorded during March 2026 have yet to contribute any re-advertisements to the total.

The data for this post are collected from both the DfE vacancy site and other key job boards twice a week, and entered by myself into the database. A re-advertisement is recorded for any headteacher vacancy re-appearing with a new closing date more than 14 days after the original closing date. This allows two weeks leeway for short-term extensions of the closing date to be ignored.

I reported on the initial outcomes for the first 1,000 vacancies in a post on the 8th March What the first 1,000 headteacher adverts tell us | John Howson so this is by way of an Easter catch-up.

The database now has details of 1,261 advertisements for headteacher vacancies, posted by 1,110 schools.

The current re-advertisement rate for special schools stands at 27%. This is down two points from the 27% recorded in the 8th March post. However, it is still significantly higher than any other re-advertisement rate for a sub-set of schools: the current overall re-advertisement rate for all schools is 12% of all advertisement or 14% of first advertisements. This latter percentage reflects the fact that a small number of schools have now re-advertised their vacancy more than once. In March the percentage of all adverts that were re-adverts was 11%, so on that basis, at 12%, the overall position has worsened slightly.

As reported in the 8th March post, faith schools are more likely to appear in the list of schools that didn’t fill their headteacher vacancy at their first attempt. Based on a percentage of all adverts for the faith group, Roman Catholic schools’ re-advertisement rate currently stands at 19%, compared with 16% in the 8th march post. If re-advertisements as a percentage of schools advertising is considered, rather than the percentage of all advertisement, the re-advertisement rate for Roman Catholic schools, including the three schools that have re-advertised twice, rises to 23%. For Church of England schools, the percentages are 13% and 15%., just one percentage point above the average for all schools.

So, is there a crisis in headteacher recruitment? As my post of yesterday (3rd April) revealed, headteacher turnover is nowhere near the levels I recorded twenty years ago, so the volume of vacancies cannot be a reason for the current level of re-advertisements.

The mix of schools has no doubt contributed to the current level of re-advertisement by schools failing to make an appointment for their new headteacher or, in a few cases, co-headteacher on a job share.

I am wary of declaring a crisis at this stage of the year. Those that have read my book* of the 2013 blog posts know that when I called the teacher supply crisis in the early summer of that year, the DfE accused me of scaremongering. I would hate to be accused of such behaviour once more, so let me end by saying that the fate of pupils with SEND in special schools will not be helped if such schools cannot recruit headteachers.

I propose to write an interim report on the outcome for the year during August and the final version, allowing for re-advertisements during the autumn term will hopefully appear in January 2027.

*Teachers, schools and views on Education – available through amazon or on request directly from myself/

What’s in a name?

Posted on by
2

I was recently surprised to find that a school called John Spence Community High School in North Shields was in really an academy. I am sure the school serves its community, but I wondered how common is it for schools that are academies to use the term ‘community in their name? Well, there is Barnhill Community High School in Hillingdon, part of the Middlesex Learning Trust – itself a name that represent little more than the name of a county council abolished in the 1960s. There is also the Abbeywood Community School’ part of the Olympus Academy Trust in the Bristol area.

So, it seems that is not uncommon for schools to retain their existing name when converting to an academy. Other confusing names for schools that might catch out unwary parents, and even employers reading references include – grammar schools that aren’t selective schools – Enfield Grammar school springs to mind, but it is not alone. Indeed, Enfield is also the home of Enfield County School, located in Enfield that was once part of the county of Middlesex, and a selective school for girls while a Middlesex County Council School.  Again, it is not the only school to retain the term ‘county’ in its name. At least the ‘county’ schools in Essex and Surrey can at present claim to be part of a county. Post-local government reorganisation means that they will eventually join Enfield and Edmonton County Schools as representing areas that no longer exist in any local government sense.

High School is another meaningless term for a school. Such schools can be 11-16 or 11-18, selective or comprehensive, depending on where they are located. Even more confusing to anyone moving to the Derby area could be Risley Lower Grammar CE (VC) Primary School. What on earth is a ‘lower grammar school’? Like First school, lower schools are usually school taking pupils up to the ages of eight or nine, when they are not the used to describe a site for the first few year groups of a secondary school, or even, in the case of The Basildon Lower Academy in Essex, a school for pupils in Years 7-9.

If school types are confusing, then hopefully one can assume that all schools named after saints are church schools. Sadly, no. One of my favourite exceptions is a primary school in Watford. The school’s prospectus tell parents how the school acquired its name as follows:

“St Meryl School was built in 1951 and is situated on a large attractive site in a central position within Carpenders Park. The name of the school, St Meryl, does not indicate any affiliation with a particular religion or religious denomination; in fact, “Meryl” was the name of the builder’s wife!” st-meryl-school-prospectus-2025-2026.pdf

I made use of this idea when naming he school in my recent play about falling rolls.

However, it is now the name of schools that worries me most, but that the term ‘teacher’ is not a reserved occupation term like ‘engineer’ or ‘accountant’. Anyone can call themselves a teacher, regardless of whether they have any qualifications.

To me that is an insult to the many thousands of teachers that gave gained QTS, often at great personal expense. There is still time to insert a clause in the Bill before parliament to remedy this oversight and grant legal status for qualified teachers.

 

 

Celebrating the spaghetti harvest

Posted on by
Reply

As today is April 1st, I thought about writing a post to celebrate All Fool’s Day. However, I didn’t have the heart to do so after reading Mark Pack’s brilliant parody of focus groups and political leaders. EXCLUSIVE: New focus group insights on political party leaders

My thought was to parody the mess the governance of schooling is in England at present by linking it to the opportunity offered by local government reorganisation. The post might have read something like this:

A leaked memo has suggested that the new councils created from local government reorganisation should have Education Committees. For those that are unaware of their history, such Committees existed for over a hundred years until Tony Blair imposed the cabinet style of government on local government, around the turn of the century, and abolished committees.

As a result, many decisions about education are currently taken by one person, the cabinet member, ratified, if necessary, by the cabinet, and then subject to scrutiny either before or after introduction. Although, as the civil service knows, cabinet government works well for the DfE, but it hasn’t always worked well at local levels, where coalition government is more commonplace. Local decisions about academies are often taken without any local scrutiny at all.

There is a pressing need to control the sprawling and out of control school scene, where two parallel school systems – academies and maintained schools – operate alongside each other with two sets of costs and a third diocesan system cuts across both. Education Committees could create single MAT for an area, including all schools, and make each school subject to democratically appointed governing bodies, voted in each year by the use of an app on mobile phones. Local employers would also have a vote, as would the Schools Council.

Schools forums would be abolished. Each Education Committee would establish a group of expert teachers to help schools and act as a buffer between schools and ofsted. In fact, ofsted would only visit schools either where Education Committees were concerned about the school or as part of a national sampling exercise liked to specific areas of national concern.

Education Committees would be part of a partnership of schooling that reflected a national service locally administered. Their understanding of place ….

At this point, the next page of the memo is lost. However, there is a note in the margin in scrawly handwriting that the current system is expensive and we should take a leaf out of the Department of Health’s recent mergers of ICBs to cut costs. We are worried that the growth of new upper tier authorities replacing the remaining ‘shire’ counties will increase costs with many new Directors each requiring need liaising from the department.

For those that don’t understand the heading, I suggest a visit to The Best April Fools’ Hoax Ever – GreekReporter.com Next year will be 70th anniversary of the programme’s first broadcast. What a different world we now inhabit.