What’s in a name? I suspect that St Mary’s, albeit in a myriad of different forms, probably remains the most popular name for a school; certainly, for primary schools. For some reason, it seems like it is less common to use the name of a saint in the name of a church secondary school. The exception to this rule seems to be where the saint was a Martyr, and especially and English martyr.
However, with the growth of academies, is a new trend developing of including the name of the operator of the Multi Academy Trust to which the school belongs in the schools’ name? I was alerted to this possibility when entering headteacher vacancies. Recruiting headteachers in 2025 – a mixed picture | John Howson
In the course of entering vacancies, I came across a school called: ‘Saracens Broadfields’. Now, I have always associated The Saracens with a rugby union club, originating, I believe, in Southgate. This school provides no indication of its location in its name, but it is located elsewhere in outer London.
Some MATs, such as Dixons, provide both the brand name, Dixons, plus the location in the name of the school in the names of many of their schools.
Of course, it is important to know the group responsible for a school, and in the days before websites, when parents had to rely upon the noticeboard by the school gate, that noticeboard used to display the local authority, diocese or other operator of the school alongside the school’s name. In practice, most schools still have noticeboards, and these boards still contain the same information. However, it is often more of a challenge to find who is responsible for a school from its website.
Happily, the DfE has a solution, as the details of a school on the DfE information portal contain the name of any academy trust, diocese, local authority or other operator. This makes it possible to see all the schools under the control of the operator; very helpful where the schools are spread across several different local authority areas, as is the case with many dioceses, and a growing number of academy trusts.
Apart from Queen Elizabeth, and various Henry’s, royalty does feature highly in school names. These are usually references to Tudor monarchs that help establish the schools from with the current school can trace its lineage. A few politicians, often former education ministers, such as Ellen Wilkinson and Rab Butler have been honoured to have schools named after them. Some other famous people have had local schools named after them, such as Sir Malcolm Sarget in Stamford and Sir Frank Whittle in Coventry. Florence Nightingale has a primary school named after her, and Elizabeth Garrett Anderson has a secondary school bearing her name, although from its web site it would be a challenge to discover why the school had that name, and that seems a shame.
So will schools be unceasingly likely to display their brand in their names. If so, what will happen when a school is traded between MATS for some reason or other. Clearly, the name will have to change.
Let me finish this post, the first of 2026, by wishing readers all the best for the New Year. May 2026 be a good year for you.
A report by Prof. John Howson, Oxford Teacher Services Ltd
Executive Summary
· More than 400 state schools in England advertised a headteacher vacancy between August and Christmas 2025.
· 17% of special school headteacher adverts were not filled at first advert and had been re-advertised by Christmas 2025.
· 16% of Roman Catholic schools have had to re-advertise their head teacher vacancy.
· 26% of schools that advertised a head teacher vacancy in September had re-advertised the post by Christmas 2025.
· 45 of the 91 secondary schools advertising for a new headteacher quoted a starting salary of more than £100,000 – not all schools quoted a starting salary.
· Some schools offered non-pay benefits as well as the cash salary.
· The lowest starting salary quoted for a headteacher vacancy was £53,000.
Introduction
Between 1983 and 2022, I produced an annual report into the turnover of headteachers in state schools in England. The data collection was paused in July 2022, just before I took on the role of Cabinet Member for Children’s Service in Oxfordshire. After ceasing to be a councillor in May 2025, and hence relinquishing my Cabinet role, I once again started reviewing advertisements for headteachers posted by state schools in England.
Most headteacher vacancies appear on the DfE’s quirky teacher vacancy platform. However, a small number also appear in the ‘tes’ on-line vacancy portal. When I started collecting headteacher vacancies in the 1980s, the ‘tes’ paper edition was the main vehicle for posting headteacher vacancies.
At that time, it was mandatory for these vacancies to be posted nationally. Although not a requirement today, I suspect that most vacancies for headteachers are still posted nationally on vacancy sites such as the DfE site. Among the vacancies posted there can be wide variations in the length of time between a vacancy appearing on the DfE vacancy website and the closing date for applications.
Presumably, if there is a strong internal candidate, either within the school or the Multi Academy Trust to which the school belongs, there is no incentive to have the standard three weeks to a month period between the vacancy and the closing date.
Looking at the data collected this autumn, it has been possible to identify one school in special measures that advertised a vacancy collected on a Monday, but with a closing date for the Friday of the same week – was there a strong internal candidate? Perhaps an acting interim headteacher, so the advertisement was a mere formality?
My methodology for the survey has been to search both the DfE and ‘tes’ vacancy sites at least every week, and during busy periods more than once a week. This is a more accurate methodology than just counting vacancies using Artificial Intelligence, since the DfE’s website has a habit of regularly posting some vacancies more than once at the same point in time. This quirk has been a part of the DfE’s site since its inception, and can make simple vacancy counting inaccurate.
While some schools have a short space of time between the advert appearing and the closing date, by way of contrast, some other schools advertise well in advance of their closing date. Five schools that advertised in December 2025 had a closing date in February 2026.
Too long a period between advertising a vacancy and the closing date for applications can be a risk for a school. Previous surveys found that candidates often applied for several vacancies, especially for primary headships advertised during busy periods for vacancies. Keeping a vacancy open too long, and then waiting before interviewing can risk losing good candidates to another school where the process is shorter in time.
Faith schools often fall into the latter category of schools with long periods between the vacancy being advertised and the closing date, especially if they are not part of an academy trust.
One key change since the days of paper advertising of vacancies for headships has been the importance of December as a period for advertising such vacancies. In the days of print advertising, few vacancies were advertised in December, and previous reports warned against the risk of such an advertisement, since few likely candidates were reading the job columns in December, and many advertised vacancies were often re-advertised in January.
In the modern ‘on-line’ era, where AI can help do the job search for a candidate, advertising in December, as soon as a governing body or Trust has been informed of a resignation is no longer a handicap. Indeed, in December 2025, there were 133 headteacher vaccines recorded, compared with just 56 in September. 2025
Not surprisingly, primary schools of all descriptions dominated the total vacancies advertised. The primary school sector accounted for 299 or the 436 vacancies recorded between August and Christmas 2025.
By contrast, there were 91 vacancies for secondary schools, including two for all-through schools with a primary section. Such all-through schools were fashionable a decade ago, when schools were converting to become academies. However, I have never been a fan of such schools, preferring the 1944 Education Act requirement of a split between the primary and secondary phases, at whatever age it occurs.
Indeed, there are still some ‘Middle’ schools in existence with a transfer age of either 12 or 13, rather than at age 11, where the vast majority of pupils still transfer from one sector to the other.
Unlike in previous studies of headteacher vacancies since the1980s, this analysis collected state nursery school vacancies and vacancies for special schools as well as the vacancies for primary and secondary school headships. To date, there have been two vacancies for headteachers of state nursery schools, and 44 for headteachers of state special schools. There has also been one vacancy for a Sixth Form College (16-19) run under Schools’ Regulations and managed by a university.
Vacancies recorded by sector
Sector
Readvertised
Vacancy
Percentage Re-advertised
Primary
19
298
6%
Secondary
3
88
3%
Special
9
44
20%
Independent/other
0
1
0%
Nursery
0
2
0%
All Through
0
2
0%
Sixth Form College
0
1
0%
31
436
7%
Vacancies by control of the school
The majority of schools that advertised for a headteacher were not faith schools of any description. These non-faith schools consisted of both ‘maintained’ schools, where the local upper tier authority was the de jure employer of the headteacher, even though decisions on hiring and firing were taken by individual schools, and not the local authority. As a result of this anomaly between the de jure and de facto employment position, however small the school is, it is still subject to the apprenticeship Levy, as a result of the local authority’s position as employer.
Schools that were not ‘maintained’ were academies, either as an increasingly rare ‘standalone’ academy or as part of a Multi Academy Trust overseen by a Chief Executive. In some smaller Trusts, the Chief Executive may also be the headteacher of a school within the Trust. In that case the vacancy was recorded. Where the Chief Executive was not a head of a named school the vacancy was not included in this survey.
The two key Christian denominations of the Church of England, and the Roman Catholic Church, accounted for 126 vacancies between them in this survey (Church of England, 79, and the Roman Catholic Church, 47 vacancies). There were also two joint Church of England and Methodist Church primary schools and one Methodist primary school that advertised for a headteacher during the August to Christmas 2025 period.
In addition, one school of another Christian denomination advertised for a headteacher during the survey period. No schools of a non-Christian religions were recorded as advertising for a headteacher during the period under review.
Of course, such schools could have advertised their headteacher vacancy in locations specific to their religion, and those vacancies would not then be picked up by this survey if the school did not also advertise on the DfE vacancy site.
Vacancies by control of the school – faith groups
Control of School
Readvertised
Vacancy
Percentage Re-advertised
Church of England
3
79
4%
CE/M
0
2
0%
Methodist Church
0
1
0%
Roman Catholic
8
47
17%
Other Denominations
1
1
100%
No Faith
19
306
6%
Total
31
436
7%
Although the survey does not currently record the Trust to which academies belong, it is possible to discern some of the policies adopted by Trusts around advertising. Some Trusts advertise the vacancy with the address of their headquarters, rather than the address of the school. This is obviously necessary for new schools that are not yet open, but can be confusing for vacancies relating to established schools located away from the Trust’s headquarters.
As noted, some Trusts also advertise for ‘Executive headteachers. These have only been included when it is clear that they are also the headteacher of a specific school within the Trust, and not just responsible for a group of schools.
In 2026, the survey’s methodology will consider trying to capture more information about the Trust a school belongs to at the time the vacancy is recorded.
Re-advertisements
As has been shown in the previous tables in this report, some schools do not manage to make an appointment after advertising a headteacher vacancy.
This survey records a re-advertisement as a repeat vacancy for the same headteacher post with a new closing date at least two weeks after the first recorded closing date. This methodology had been in use since the inception of my headteacher vacancy surveying in the 1980s.
At that time, in the 1980s, it allowed for errors in the original print advertisement to be corrected or the same original vacancy to be advertised for several weeks without counting as a re-advertisement.
With the advent of on-line vacancy advertising, the ‘closing’ date for applications is clear, and it is obvious if it has been altered. These days ‘closing dates’ for vacancies on the DfE vacancy site also specify the latest time that applications can be received.
As a result of some vacancies appearing on the DfE vacancy site with a very short period between the vacancy being captured and the closing date, it has been deemed prudent to retain the clear two-week period before a vacancy can be described as a re-advertisement.
Even though the data on headteachers has only been collected over a five-month period, some clear trends around re-advertising stand out. Two types of schools dominate the schools that decided to re-advertise, presumably because of an inadequate number of applicants suitable for appointment to their headship.
Of the 31 re-advertisements, (including three schools that re-advertised twice during the period after the original vacancy was recorded, nine were special schools, and 19 were primary schools: just three were secondary schools.
The other group with seemingly significant challenges recruiting a new headteacher were the eight were Roman Catholic schools. These schools represent 17% of all Roman Catholic schools that advertised during the period, (eight schools out of 47). One Roman Catholic school re-advertised twice during the period under review.
It is possible that these percentages for re-advertisements are an under-estimate because of the fact that data collection only started in August 2025. Thus, some re-advertisement may have been recorded as first advertisement because their original vacancy was advertised before August 2025. In the 2026 survey, data for a complete year will overcome this issue. In the 2026 survey, any gap of more than twelve months between an advertisement will create a new vacancy, not a further re-advertisement. However, that is for the future, and not this report.
School types with significant re-advertisements for headteacher vacancies
Type of School
Re-advertised vacancies
Original recorded vacancies for the type
Percentage Re-advertised
Special Schools
9
44
20%
Roman Catholic Schools
8
47
17%
Primary Schools
19
297
6%
At present, it is not possible to determine whether the number of pupils on rolls also affects the likelihood of a school readvertising a post. However, further research will investigate this point. One proxy for the number of pupils on roll is the starting salary offered for a headteacher vacancy.
The significant percentage of Roman Catholic schools re-advertising their headteacher vacancy is not a surprise. Previous surveys, from the 1980s onwards, have often shown such schools with a greater propensity to re-advertise a headteacher vacancy than other non-faith or Church of England schools, especially in the primary school sector.
As this is the first time that special school headteacher vacancies have been collected on a systematic basis by this survey, it would be unfair to do more than just record the high percentage of vacancies re-advertised for the headships of such schools (20% of schools have re-advertised). With SEND such a key policy topic, this level of re-advertisement is, however, a matter for concern.
Regional variations
The nine previous government office regions have been used in the past in this survey as a means of determining any regional trends. Even though such regions no longer exist they do still offer a useful basis for comparison, especially during the current chaos of local government reorganisation outside of the conurbations of England. It seems illogical that some local authorities responsible for schools in historic Berkshire County may have been re-organised three times since 1970: in 1974, in the 1990s, and currently awaiting the results of the present round of re-organisation. However, since the 1963 reorganisation in London, the outer London borough responsible for schooling have remained on largely unchanged boundaries, even though some have been reclassified as inner London boroughs at some point in time by the DfE.
Regional vacancy rate for headteachers
Region
Number of schools with re-advertisements
Number of vacancies
Percentage of re-advertisements
East of England
8
62
13%
East Midlands
1
40
3%
London
3
44
7%
North East
2
10
20%
North West
6
73
8%
South East
2
42
5%
South West
1
48
2%
West Midlands
4
58
7%
Yorkshire & The Humber
3
63
5%
TOTAL
30
436
7%
Little should be made of this data, as it only covers a five-month period. The high percentage for the North East is as a result of two special schools in the region needing to re-advertise their vacancy for a headteacher. Apart from that anomaly, there is no evidence of re-advertising by schools in the north East.
There is no evidence of high price housing areas such as London and the South East affecting the need to re-advertise from this limited dataset. However, the East of England that includes local authorities to the north and east of London does have an above average rate of re-advertisements. This will be an area to watch in 2026 to see if this trend continues.
Starting salary of vacancies advertised
One way that schools can prevent the need to re-advertise in high price areas is to offer competitive salaries. Historically, a school’s salary for the headteacher was decided by the number and age range of pupils, with a supplement for special schools because of their nature.
Around a quarter of a century ago, with schools being handed freedom over their budgets, this rule broke down. For a period of time, schools advertised headteacher vacancies with phrases such as ‘a competitive salary’, but no cash amount or a range of spine points in their advertisement. Some schools still eschew advertising a cash salary or a range of points on the Leadership Scale in their advertisement, but may add incentives by way of non-pay inducements in their details of their headteacher vacancy.
In this survey, 12 secondary schools, four primary schools and three special schools of the 436 schools surveyed contained either no cash value or no indication of points on the Leadership Scale for a starting salary. In their advertisement
Some 256 schools included a cash value, either as a range or a fixed point as the starting salary. Of course, a person appointed might start above the bottom of the advertised range, but without the knowledge of actual starting salaries, those bottom points of any range indicated in the advertisement has been used as a sensible point to take for survey purposes.
Starting Salaries
Type of School
Highest cash starting point
Age range and number of pupils on roll for this school
Highest Leadership Starting point
Age range and number of pupils on roll for this school
Primary
£93,424
836
L28
871
Secondary
£120,000
1418
L37
1817
Special
£115,380
137
L25
166
Not the same school for cash and Leadership starting point
There were 44 secondary schools, and five special schools with a starting salary of more than six figures (over £100,000). Of course, some of these starting salaries are increased because the school is in the London weighting or fringe areas for salary purposes.
Interestingly, the school with the highest salary on offer recorded in this survey was in the national salary part of England. The highest recorded starting salary for a primary school headteacher in an advertisement was £93,424 in cash terms, or Leadership point 28 in scale point terms. The lowest salary on offer for a headteacher vacancy in the primary sector was £53,000 in cash terms or Point 1 on the Leadership Scale.
Non-cash benefits
Perhaps the most inclusive set of non-cash benefits offered in an advertisement for a headteacher can be found in a headteacher vacancy advertised by the Co-op Academy chain of schools. Their advertisement offered the following,’ Our employee benefits package includes:’
You’ll get being a Co-op member, you’ll get a Co-op colleague discount card. This gives you a 10% discount in our Co-op Food stores.
Co-operative flexible benefits (discounted line rental and broadband package, family care advice and cycle to work scheme)
Discounted gym membership and leisure activities which includes discounts on Merlin Entertainments (Sea Life, Legoland etc), Virgin Experience Days, SuperBreak and many more!
Co-operative Credit Union: save directly from your salary and receive a competitive dividend. Borrowers can benefit from very competitive interest rates & terms (in comparison with other high street lenders)
Co-op Funeralcare benefit
Season ticket and rental deposit loans
Hopefully, at least one of those benefits will be of no interest to candidates.
Another school offered the following non-cash benefits
access to a private health insurance scheme
a relocation package (subject to eligibility)
a daily lunch allowance for use in the school restaurant
access to our exclusive Benefits Hub.
a cycle to work scheme
a confidential employee assistance service
use of on-site fitness suite
an eye care voucher scheme
flu vaccination vouchers (subject to eligibility)
While a special school offered a mixture of expected benefits, plus a few others:
Competitive salary
Fully funded CPD, mentoring & coaching
A trust-wide commitment to wellbeing, including paid wellbeing days, and free on-site parking
Flexible working options
Access to an employee assistance programme
Teachers’ Pension Scheme
Employee referral scheme (earn up to £500 for successful referrals)
Highly resourced classrooms, small class sizes and access to multidisciplinary teams
A strong safeguarding and therapeutic culture
A London primary school offered the following as benefits
A commitment to supporting a healthy work/life balance
A happy, supportive and friendly environment where we work effectively as a team
Children who are eager to learn, committed staff, governors, parents and carers
Inspiring curriculum enrichment opportunities because of our exciting location close to central London and Spitalfields City Farm
Surprisingly, there were not as many references to tax free relocation allowances in the advertisements as I might have expected.
Conclusion
This survey of headteacher vacancies recorded between August 2025 and Christmas 2025 follows in the tradition of such surveys first started by the author over 40 years ago, in the mid-1980s, and continued until July 2022.
Data has been recorded for more than 400 headteacher vacancies advertised between August 2025 and Christmas 2025. The vacancies were advertised on either the DfE vacancy site or in some cases the ‘tes’ website.
While most schools appear to be successful in recruiting a new headteacher, those that advertised their vacancy in September may have had less success than those schools advertising during the rest of the autumn. However, final re-advertisement rates for vacancies across the autumn won’t be clear until early in 2026, so this point cannot yet be confirmed.
Nevertheless, as in past surveys, it is clear that some schools are finding recruiting a new headteacher more of a challenge than other schools. Two types of school: special schools and schools operated by the Roman Catholic church, both had above average levels of re-advertisements in this survey. I
In the case of two special schools, these schools have been recorded as having placed two re-advertisements for their vacancy, in addition to their first advertisement. Hopefully, these schools will be successful with their third advertisement.
The problems recruiting staff for special schools is often overlooked when the SEND crisis is discussed, and deserves more attention from policymakers.
A significant number of secondary schools now offer starting salaries for their headteacher vacancy of more than £100,000. Starting salaries for some large primary schools are less than £10,000 away from a six-figure starting salary.
Schools now regularly offer a range of non-cash benefits in their advertisements, but one that might have best left out of their advertisement by the Co-op multi academy trust is that of ‘a Co-op Funeral care benefit’. Hopefully, it is not one the incoming headteacher would be expected to need.
December used to be a quiet month for headteacher recruitment when advertisements appear in the press. Nowadays, with on-line advertising, it has become a much busier month for new vacancies to be advertised.
Presumably, schools hope candidates interested in a headship will surf the net between Christmas and the New Year for a new job. However, some schools still have hedged their bets with closing dates not until February 2026. Such late closing dates risk those schools’ losing candidates to schools that are fleeter of foot in their recruitment process.
On the other hand, some schools advertise for no more than a week between vacancy posted and the closing date. Does this suggest an internal candidate being favoured?
In a normal year, about 2,000 headteacher vacancies and re-advertisements might be recorded, so it will be interesting to see how 2026 pans out and the total number of vacancies advertised for the 2025-26 school year.
I look forward to writing the report on 2026 next December
Has the funding of SEND just become even more complicated for 2026-27? Under the arrangements announced by the DfE, cash has moved from the High Needs Block to other funding streams within the Dedicated Schools Grant. Dedicated schools grant (DSG): 2026 to 2027 – GOV.UK
Now I am no expert in schools funding, and the labyrinthine calculations employed by the DfE in deciding both the size of the cake and its distribution. However, it does seem as if all local authorities will see their High Needs Block funding stream reduced in 2026-27 when compared with 2025-26. As seem usual, some London boroughs have been less affected by the change than other upper tier authorities, with 10 of the 20 local authorities with the smallest percentage decrease being London boroughs. There are no London boroughs within the top 20 authorities with the largest percentage reductions, with the highest ranked London borough coming in at 23rd place.
Oxfordshire, where I served as the Cabinet member until May’s elections, has seen a decline of 18.75% in its High Needs block. That decline ranks it in the top 25 local authorities for the largest reductions in their High Needs Block. Hopefully, the cash has been distributed to schools, but the Schools Block for the County has also reduced, by around £5 million – effectively a standstill. No doubt the reduction is due to falling pupil numbers on a formula that is heavily driven by pupil numbers. The implications for schools faced with falling rolls was discussed in my blog post How might a school react to falling rolls? | John Howson
What does the DfE say about the High Needs block changes?
16. As the existing SEND system will continue for 2026 to 2027, the Department’s assessment is that limiting the funding in this way will not necessarily translate into negative impacts on children and young people with SEND and will not mean that we see negative equalities impacts. This is because the requirements on local authorities to secure provision to meet the needs of children and young people with SEND will remain in place, and local authorities must meet these requirements. The consequent budget pressures will therefore lead to accruing DSG deficits rather than having a negative impact on SEND provision.
And 17.We recognise that the size of deficits that some local authorities may accrue while the statutory override is in place may not be manageable with local resources alone, and will bring forward arrangements to assist with them as part of broader SEND reform plans, as explained in the Government’s provisional local government finance settlement document. Given that local authorities will continue to be protected from the adverse impact of those deficits through the so-called “statutory override”, and because we are seeking to protect school level allocations of high needs funding through the conditions of grant attached to the DSG, we do not envisage any adverse impact on those children and young people with protected characteristics, including those with disabilities. The national funding formula for schools and high needs 26-27
Of course, this assumes that the cash channelled through the Schools Block of the DSG is actually spent on SEND by schools, and accounted for as such in academy and MAT budgets. I am sure that will be the case.
Still, those special schools that see the base funding per pupil stuck at £10,000 for another year will no doubt wonder what has happened to inflation accounting.
All we can hope for is that it won’t be too long before the SEND reforms are announced. However, with consultation session running into 2026, it is difficult to see how SEND reforms and local government reorganisation won’t become mixed up together, with who knows what results. Perhaps the new arrangements announced for Surrey might give an indication. Hopefully, the fact that West Northamptonshire has the largest reduction in the High Needs Block of any upper tier authority (25%+) is due to its past history, not its present resourcing.
Correction to Chapter 5, paragraph 5.19, second bullet Text currently reads: If it were fully funded within the Department for Education’s £69 billion RDEL core schools budget in 2028-29, this would imply a 1.7 per cent real fall in mainstream school spending per pupil rather than the 2.4 per cent increase planned by Government.
Text should read: If it were fully funded within the Department for Education’s £69 billion RDEL core schools budget in 2028-29, this would imply a 4.9 per cent real fall in mainstream school spending per pupil rather than the 0.5 per cent real increase planned by Government.
5.19 Special educational needs and disabilities: As set out in more detail in Box 5.1, the Government has announced that from 2028-29 the cost of SEND provision will be fully absorbed within the existing RDEL envelope. The Government has not set out any specific plans on how this pressure, which we estimate at £6 billion in 2028-29, would be accommodated within the existing RDEL envelope. If it were fully funded within the Department for Education’s £69 billion RDEL core schools budget in 2028-29, this would imply a 4.9 per cent real fall in mainstream school spending per pupil rather than the 0.5 per cent real increase planned by Government. The Government has stated that it will set out proposed reforms to SEND provision early in the new year.
So, another function disappears from local authorities, presumably to the DfE as SEND funding will be handled at a national level. Will it include management of transport as well as granting of EHCPs? Who knows, the OBR don’t, but warn that funding per pupil could fall by 4.9%. For many schools, this will be on top of any loss of income from falling rolls. Start planning now for such an outcome.
More to come when the White Paper finally emerges sometime in 2026
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.
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?
The DfE has just published data that sets the context for the expected White Paper, due this autumn. Looking at the data on the High Needs Block that has been the basic building block for the funding of SEND (special needs and disabilities), I can see why there must have been some very intense discussions between the DfE and the Treasury. Section 251: 2025 to 2026 – GOV.UK
The data on individual special school funding only refers to maintained schools where local authorities are responsible for oversight of the budgets. It would be really helpful to see similar ‘cost per place’ data for academy special schools and alternative provision, including Pupil Referral Units, even though they have a different financial year to maintained schools.
The data for the municipal financial year of 2025-26 for Oxfordshire was set while I was still the cabinet member for Children’s Services, including maintained schools. The data on funding per place for the three maintained special schools in Oxfordshire is illuminating. There is a total of 522 such schools in England listed in the data. The most expensive costs £8.2 million per place, and judging by its website does a great job educating some very challenged young people from the start of their education journey to adulthood.
Now special schools come in many different forms with clearly different funding needs. A school for pupils with hearing loss and no other disability might need less funding per place than a school for non-verbal young people with physical disabilities in addition
The three Oxfordshire maintained schools were placed 74th, 155th and 170th in the list of 522 schools, with funding per place ranging from £840,000 to £1,2 million. Schools with £2,000,000 per place of more were ranked 373 of higher in the list. Does this mean that Oxfordshire is efficient or under-funded compared with some other local areas? I do wonder.
Even allowing for issues such as higher salary costs in London and surrounding areas, the range of cost per place for similar types of school seems worth looking into more closely, and that is where the academy special schools’ data would be useful in order to allow full consideration of cost per place by local government areas.
The current High Needs block distribution formula clearly isn’t working, and I wonder whether equity of funding is an issue for the team putting together the White Paper? How does anyone judge what is fair in funding levels? Wiser heads than mine will know the answer to that question.
Of course, the other key funding issue for SEND, especially outside of the urban areas, is the cost of transport. The Section 251 budget statement for planned expenditure during 2025-26 by Oxfordshire at Line 175092 of the DfE’s spreadsheet suggests expected spending on SEND transport, including for post-16 students of around f£26.4 million. This compares with expected home to school transport costs of just under £21 million for all other pupils entitled to fee transport.
How will the White Paper deal with this cost? Hopefully, it will recognise that such costs should be met by government up to age 18 or even 19 for all such pupils, and not be discretionary beyond age 16. Could a government funded driver scheme for unemployed adults with a driving licence remove the profit element from such expenditure or would the administration costs be more than the saving made by not using private sector firms?
These are not easy issues to grapple with, but starting with some values about the needs of children with SEND would be a good basis for the outcomes in the White Paper. However, as my earlier analysis of Pupil Teacher Ratios demonstrated, funding and values are not common cause in government spending, regardless of the political persuasion of the government in power. Oxford Teacher Services -publications
SEND was identified as one of their 3 top priorities by 60% of a random sample of 100 delegates at the recent Lib Dem Conference. 45% ranked it first and 15% second, often behind funding in general.
This result isn’t a surprise to anyone in education, although falling rolls doesn’t yet seem to have worked its way up the political agenda to be a top priority for councillors and activists. I am sure that will change.
Anyway, as regular readers know, before the summer break I expressed concerns about the SEND deficit many local authorities are facing, only to have the end date for the ‘statutory override’ kicked down the road from March 2026 to March 2028 two days after my blog appeared. I m sure there is no link between the two, just great timing on my part.
So, what might local authorities do. Two suggestions, one possible and one for consideration. Local authorities need to check that they are spending all the Apprenticeship Levy raise by them in its present form. They should not be returning any unspent cash, raised from maintained schools to HM Treasury. Apprenticeships across the SEND landscape can be a good investment, and certainly a better use of the cash than sending it back to Westminster. Hopefully, all local authorities are now making full use of the Levy cash collected.
My second suggestion needs some work. At present, SEND transport is a massive cost to many local authorities. The recent NI hike won’t have helped, and should be recognised in the funding for the High Needs Block. If not, it is a tax on SEND, and indeed education as a whole.
The other tax is Fuel Duty. Unlike VAT, I don’t think it is recoverable by local authorities, despite making up around 50% of the price of fuel at the pump. Assume a taxi does two journeys a day for 190 days a year, and uses a litre of diesel for each journey with a SEND young person. That’s around 380 litres a year. As 400 is an easier number to use, let’s round it up to that number. To compensate, let’s say diesel is £1.30 per litre. This puts the fuel cost at £520 per taxi per year. Ten taxis, £5,200; 100 taxis: £52,000. Now assume 50% fuel duty and the possible saving mount up.
Agriculture has long had a red diesel scheme to cut fuel costs. Education should not be paying income from the High Needs block back to HM Treasury in tax. Like business rates, a fuel rebate scheme should be in place where local authorities certify fuel purchased, and receive a rebate of the duty.
However, this might incentivise the use of fuel-inefficient vehicles, so the scheme should be predicated on a growing percentage of vehicles being electric, and thus not requiring the rebate. Vehicles could also be required to be less than five years old, and with a minimum miles per litre outcome.
Such a scheme won’t solve the problem, but every little helps, and it might encourage the use of electric taxis that are both cleaner for the environment and, until the government changes the rules, less costly in tax paid by local authorities.
Earlier this week the government announced the end to Council Committees as a decision-making process within local government, requiring all councils to move to a Leader and Cabinet model. Fortunately, scrutiny committees will still be permitted. Written statements – Written questions, answers and statements – UK Parliament
So, it will be a Labour government that will finally ends the governance of state education by Committee. For over a century, the Education Committee, comprised of councillors and other persons, usually representing the main faith groups with schools in the area and ‘persons with experience in education’ was the mainstay of policy-making for the nation’s state schools, and up to the early 1990s further and public sector higher education as well.
Indeed, my first appointment to a Council was to the Education Committee, as one of the persons of experience. In that role, I was appointed to Oxfordshire’s Education Committee, and one of its sub-committees in the 1990s. I served until the County moved to a Leader and Cabinet model at the end of the decade. Some 20 years after that original appointment, I became the Cabinet Member covering the education portfolio in the same county.
This move to ban committees is a curious one at the present time when so many councils do not have a majority for one Party, and are run by coalitions. Managing coalitions in the cabinet system makes it harder for each Party to have an input into all portfolios, except at the level of cabinet. I suspect it has made cabinet meetings longer when there are differences between the Parties within the Cabinet. The alternative is that difficult decisions are dropped, rather than dealt with.
The cabinet model is also bad news for back bench councillors, especially where there is a large majority for one Party, because other than the scrutiny function, where they may sit as the occasional substitute, they will have little or no formal role in decision-making. The committee system did allow greater participation from councillors, even if it was slower at reaching decisions.
My guess is that even when formal committees are banned, unofficial groups will still be formed to help cabinet members. They may be Cabinet Committees; task and finish groups for particular projects or even unofficial committees such as the Corporate Parenting Panel of councillors from all Parties that was revived during my time as cabinet member.
The real tragedy of this move is that it represents a further nail in the coffin or local democracy. Committees meet in public for the most part, and that means there can be public input before a decision is made. The risk now is that decisions may be scrutinised after they have been made, but less so before being agreed.
One solution is to ensure that there is widespread consultation before decisions are made, as has just taken place in Oxfordshire on whether or not to charge for SEND transport for the 16-19 age group.
Councils are businesses, but not companies. How they manage decision-making with their democratic responsibilities is no matter to be taken lightly. But a time of political turmoil is an odd time to mandate that only one system of governance is possible.
Reading the Youth Justice Board Bulletin this week alerted me to a new publication about a piece of research into exclusions by schools led by the University of Oxford. Equity-by-Design_Excluded-Lives.pdf The report contains the following in its conclusion
‘Addressing inequality in education requires a radical rethink that shifts the focus from accountability on school academic performance to accountability for the inclusion and wellbeing of the child in balance with achievement and attainment. We believe that ‘Equity by Design: Our Children, Our Responsibility’ contributes to this essential process’. (page 8)
The report also notes that ‘The challenge for schools in England and the current Labour government in its policy development is how to address issues of equity and inclusion in schools in a period of multiple pressures on school leaders and staff, their pupils, and available resources. These pressures are reflected in high and rising levels of exclusion that disproportionately affect vulnerable and marginalised children and their communities.’
All worthy stuff, but the lack of a focus on staffing in schools, especially in view of the interactions with adults being the most common reasons for an exclusion was a bit of a surprise to me.
‘Training from Initial Teacher Education/Initial Teacher Training to the National Professional Qualification for Headship should address inclusive and relational practice and its implications for teaching and learning, behaviour policies, and pastoral care, as relevant to the context, role, and stage of professional development of staff.’
I found their conclusions on staffing wordier that useful. I hope they meant that all staff need to be trained to be aware of circumstances that might escalate into an exclusion, and that training should be tailored to the circumstances of the school. It is important for schools to identify what percentage of exclusions result from interactions with non-teaching staff that don’t seem to rate a mention in the report.
Still, the support in the report for a collaborative approach that involved local authorities did cheer me up.
‘Local area collaborative infrastructure models.
In order to tackle what we identified as the somewhat fragmented middle tier, policy development should encourage and enable trusts, schools, AP, FE, LAs, Local Inclusion Boards, and Family Hubs to form local partnership ‘Inclusion Groups’ based on collaborative working and the sharing of learning with joint accountability for decisions.
The remit of these ‘Inclusion Groups’ would be to collaboratively identify local needs and to reconfigure where responsibilities should lie to address and meet these needs. By doing so they will be able to determine provision for individuals and decide on the overall approach and its implementation.
These Inclusion Groups should enable LAs to support and challenge schools/trusts as well as empower headteachers and other partners to request action. They should also develop family hubs and other co-location models and work with local communities and third sector partners. Their work should Reviews’ and they should report back to partners annually. Additionally, the role of education should be strengthened in local multi-agency safeguarding arrangements and partnerships.’
However, I am worried about the funding for such inclusion groups and who is to take responsibility for them in the fractured world of education that exists at the present time.
With exclusions at around their highest levels for two decades, there is clearly an issue to be tackled. Personally, I think the curriculum is the best place to start. Reviewing the Key Stage 4 offering so that it provides a relevant for all pupils and not just for those aiming to stay on at school into Key Stage 5 would be a good place to begin any changes. However, we may not have the teachers to offer any radically different curriculum at the present time.
John Howson 