Tag Archives: politics

NEETs: A North East crisis?

Posted on by
Reply

There is no doubt that although higher than they could be, NEET percentages are lower than before the raising of the learning leaving age in 2013.

However, NEET rates are nowhere near uniform across the country. In Quarter 4 of 2025, the quarter after 16 year olds have decided whether to stay in education, find an apprenticeship or become economically inactive, NEET rate in the North East of England were more than twice the rate of the of those in the South West, according to the government’s Labour Force Survey.

‘NEET and NET Estimates from the LFS’ for 16 to 24 and Q4 for 2025

Q4
EnglandNorth EastNorth WestYorkshire and The HumberEast MidlandsWest MidlandsEast of EnglandLondonSouth EastSouth West
16 to 24Percentage of population NEET13.3%21.0%14.0%15.6%16.5%13.5%11.7%12.0%11.5%9.9%
Confidence interval (95%) for the percentage NEET0.9%4.6%2.7%2.9%3.3%2.8%2.5%2.6%2.1%2.4%

Footnotes

  1. LFS data has been reweighted from January 2019 onwards. There is a discontinuity in the timeseries at this point and comparisons to earlier data should be considered with caution.
  2. All estimates should be viewed alongside associated 95% confidence intervals as shown in the underlying data. Create your own tables on neet age 16 to 24 – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK

It seems likely that the rate for males is higher than that for females, although the recent government decisions that have made working in retail and hospitality more of a challenge than before the tax changes may well be pushing up the female rate of NEETs.

It would be interesting to see whether the move from school to a college is seen as more of a challenge for males than females?

Also of interest, but not identifiable from the data, are whether the rate of NEETs for 16-17 year olds is higher in rural areas with poor transport than in urban areas with excellent public transport to college or workplace?

My hunch is that transport costs play a part in some young people becoming NEETs. I have written elsewhere about the punitive effect of motor insurance tax on young people with no possibility of a no-claims bonus. Perhaps, the tax should not be imposed on those under 18 forced to use their own transport because of where they live?

Raising the age for free transport to school and college from 16 to 18 might also encourage more participation, and would be a small cost to pay, as it would just mean more students on existing transport.

Finally, it would be interesting to see the rate of NEETs for those with EHCPs? Do special schools do a good job for their post-16 students when compared with those with EHCPs in mainstream schools? Are those with an EHCP more likely to become a NEET if they attend an 11-16 or an 11-18 school?

These are interesting questions where it is challenging to find the data to answer the questions that will affect policy decisions.

Highest paid staff in academies: one LA area

Posted on by
Reply

Each year academies and MATs are required to publish their accounts. These accounts include a table showing the salary bands for staff paid more than £60,000. Each year, I track the changes for academies and MATs across one geographical area. Sadly, the table isn’t complete for 2025, as a small number of schools and MATs still have not seen their account for 2024/25 published at Companies House.

MAThighest salary band in annual accounts
 SALARIES 20242025difference
1£90,000£100,000£10,00011%
2£140,000£151,000£11,0008%
3£140,000£160,000£20,00014%
4£180,000£00%
5£260,000£270,000£10,0004%
6£110,000£120,000£10,0009%
7£90,000£00%
8£120,000£140,000£20,00017%
9£130,000£130,000£00%
10£170,000£250,000£80,00047%
11£90,000£100,000£10,00011%
12£150,000£170,000£20,00013%
13£90,000£110,000£20,00022%
14£120,000£120,000£00%
15£130,000£150,000£20,00015%
16£140,000£00%
17£160,000£190,000£30,00019%
18£120,000£00%
19£190,000£200,000£10,0005%
20£90,000£00%
21£120,000£00%
22£130,000£120,000-£10,000-8%
23£140,000£00%
24£140,000£150,000£10,0007%
25£190,000£210,000£20,00011%
26£150,000£160,000£10,0007%

In 2023/24 the bands for highest paid staff member in an academy or MAT in this group of academies ranged from £90-100,00 to £260,000-£270,000. In 2024/25 the range, so far, is from £100,000-£110,000 to £270,000-£280,000.

Ten of the 26 reporting bodies (there were 17 with details for both years) saw an increase of more than 10% in the band in which their highest earner was placed. This took at least six of the reporting bodies into a band above that of the salary of the Director of Children’s Services in the authority.

Of course, the salary does not reveal the number and size and complexity of schools within the MAT, not all of which are within the geographical area of the local authority where the schools studied are located. However, there does seem to be an element of the Wild West and Frontierland in general around the issue of salaries for senior leaders.

This lack of control over public spending by the DfE mirrors a long-standing refusal to grasp the nettle of what is an Executive Headteacher, and how should they be remunerated.

If the direction of travel, foreshadowed in the recent White Paper comes about, and all schools become academies, then the DfE will be directly responsible for all schools. If such a situation comes about, then there will need to be clear rules about how much freedom over the spending of public money should be allowed.

Regiments don’t bid up the pay of their colonels, and the salaries for most public sector jobs are not subject to the vagaries of the market: it’s time to look again at how senior staff in the school sector are paid.

Is it justifiable to pay Chief Executives of MATs more than Directors of Children’s Services? Should there be a book of some colour that Trustees of MATs should consult when deciding pay and conditions, and other employment matters. Or should the market remain the deciding factor in deciding the employment rights of the leaders of our state schools in England?

What the first 1,000 headteacher adverts tell us

Posted on by
1

Between the DfE vacancy site – the DfE claims 98% of schools now use their site – and other leading job boards, I have collected details of 1,000 vacancies for headteacher posts advertised since the start of August 2025.

In the past, the three months from January to March were the most active months for headteacher vacancies, and that may well prove to be the case in the 2025/26 school year.

If the present level of vacancies continues as expected, then the annual total for headteacher vacancies will be around the 1,500 mark for 2025/26. The exact number will depend upon the number of schools that fail to make an appointment after advertising a vacancy and re-advertise.

To some, extent the degree of re-advertising that occurs will depend upon the mix of schools seeking a new headteacher, and the size of that sub-pool. However, the larger the number in the pool, the easier it is to predict trends.

What can be deduced from the first 1,000 vacancies this school year?

As expected, primary schools dominate the list, accounting for 628 of the first time vacancies, and 64 of the re-advertisements – a re-advertisement rate of 10%. Secondary schools accounted 182 first time vacancies, and 16 re-advertisements, a rate of nine per cent, and higher than I would have expected.

In view of the concerns over SEND, it is unfortunate that the 72 first time vacancies for headteachers of special schools have already produced some 21 re-advertisements, a rate of 29%, including a couple of schools that have re-advertised twice.

Interestingly, none of the 13 First schools, and none of the 21 infant schools with a recorded vacancy has seen a re-advertisement to date. In the past such vacancies have proved challenging to fill. This is still the case for junior schools headteacher vacancies, where the 38 vacancies have already generated four re-advertisements.

Nationally, the re-advertisement rate overall stands at 11%. However, that percentage already masks some regional differences.

Region RE-ADVERTISENTS 1ST ADVERT % RE-ADVERTISMENTS

SE7997%
SW81038%
WM91088%
YH1311811%
NW1512512%
EM119412%
L159915%
EE1911017%
NE43113%
ENGLAND10188711%

The percentage for the North East is affected by two special schools that have re-advertised. London, and the area to the north and east of the capital has seen the highest level of re-advertisements so far, although re-advertisement rates for schools to the south and west of the capital are, to date, much lower.

Faith schools have found recruiting a new headteacher more challenging than non-faith schools. Church of England schools have a re-advertisement rate of 13%, and Roman Catholic schools, one of 16%, compared with the overall rate of 11%.

I had wondered, with vacancies being viewed on-line these days, whether it was a smart move to advertise a vacancy in December, as perhaps candidates might use the holiday period to start job-hunting.

An analysis of the 136 vacancies tracked as appearing for the first time in December, shows that 19 schools, or 14%, have had to readvertise their vacancy, so although no longer expensive in terms of placing a vacancy on the DfE website, ‘the early bird does not always seem to catch the worm’.

Finaly, the highest starting salary recorded so far is £140,000, and 90 schools have offered a starting salary of more than £100,000. At the other end of the scale, the lowest starting salary in an advertisement for a headteacher was £51,773.

Despite staring salaries in excess of £100,00, some 14 of these schools have re-advertised their vacancy for a headteacher. Money, it seems may not be enough to attract a suitable applicant for some schools.

The war: bad news for schools?

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what might we see.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attendance and Behaviour Hubs: a DfE initiative

Posted on by
Reply

One of the government initiatives that I have just caught up with is the one around attendance and behaviour hubs. The DfE announcement in December when the programme was announced said that:

The regional improvement for standards and excellence (RISE) attendance and behaviour hubs programme is a national initiative designed to support schools in improving pupil attendance and behaviour.

Led by schools with strong practice, it aims to:

  • support school leaders to reflect on current systems
  • share effective practice
  • implement changes

It is aimed at senior leaders with responsibility for attendance and behaviour who are seeking to strengthen their school’s leadership, culture and systems. RISE attendance and behaviour hubs programme – GOV.UK

Yesterday, the DfE updated the list of lead schools, so I took a look at these schools in the South East Region.  Today’s list has five primary and five secondary schools as lead hubs.

The secondary schools are located in:

West Sussex

Milton Keynes

Medway

Slough

Portsmouth

Two of these schools are non-selective schools in a location with selective schools; four schools are under-subscribed, with the fifth school having 1150 pupils against a roll of 1058, and it is a faith school.

The five primary schools are located in

Kent – 2

East Sussex

West Sussex

Medway

All have at rolls of at least 400 pupils, although three of the schools are nowhere near their capacity.

How these schools will spread good practice across the region from Milton Keynes to the Isle of Wight and from Oxfordshire to Bracknell Forest will be an interesting challenge.

One option not open to them will be the device used in the Durham coalfield in the 19th century and recorded on the noticeboard of the school now housed in the Beamish Living Museum.

The notice reads

The following notice has been received from Mr Chatt, on behalf of the Education Committee: –

“Those schools whose average attendance for the preceding month has reached 92% may grant a half-holiday on the first Friday of the month.”

Looking at the DfE’s data for Oxfordshire, the average attendance from September 2025 to start of February 2026 was 95.1% for primary schools; 91.5% for secondary schools and 88.8% for special schools.

On the basis of that data some primary schools would have qualified for the half-day in at least one month. Possibly some secondary schools might have done so as well.

However, it is worth remembering that the schools receiving the notice were Elementary Schools, taking pupils from 5 to 13 or 14, depending upon the school leaving age at the time of undated message. Attendance by the older pupils was probably as much of a challenge in the 19th century as it is today; albeit for different reasons.

Time to review funding for trainee teachers

Posted on by
Reply

It has been interesting to watch the current debate about higher education, and the level of debt incurred by students studying for a degree. Throughout the recent debate, I don’t think I have seen any reference to the 2019 Auger Committee report Independent panel report to the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding set up by Theresa May when she was Prime Minster. Interestingly, I wrote a blog about the report after it was published, and you can read it here. Lower Fees: a threat to teacher education? | John Howson

My major concern at the time, back in 2019, was the Committee’s recommendation to reduce tuition fees to a maximum of £7,500 per year, and what that reduction might do to the funding of teacher preparation courses.

The recent debate about higher education funding has been around repayment levels and student debt, and Auger had a great deal to say about both that issue and the balance between the needs of the individual and the funding of higher education by the State. Suffice to say, the Committee ducked the issue of RPI versus CPI – leaving the decision to the Treasury. Had they had a crystal ball about the future direction of inflation, one wonders whether they might have been more assertive for a change?

However, their recommendation that interest not be calculated during a period of study, although the principal amount of the loan should still be increased in real terms, in order to reflect inflation, would have helped reduce repayments.

The recommendation of a cap on repayments would also have been useful in making clear how much the State would recover. However, the Committee did recognise that the system favoured well-paid graduates, as the sooner the loan was paid off, the lower the interest charges incurred.

As the Committee noted on page 174 of their Report.

“In the words of the Treasury Select Committee Report into student loans: “…the civil servant, the teacher and the accountant pay broadly similar amounts for their loan, but a graduate joining a “magic circle” law firm pays less, owing to rapid pay growth in the early stages of their career.”  House of Commons Treasury Committee (2018) Student Loans: Seventh Report of Session 2017-19, p15.

Regular readers will know that I have always maintained that making many, but not all, trainee teachers incur a fourth year of student debt, not required of other public servants has been a mistake, and a drag on recruitment into teaching and thus a damper on the economy of the country, as too many pupils fail to fulfil their full potential when taught by less than fully qualified teachers in certain subjects.

For several months now, I have been advocating the return of a bursary for trainee music teachers, to help stem the falling recruitment in that subject.

Realistically, I believe all teacher preparation courses should be debt-free. I also endorse Auguer’s recommendation that student debt should not carry interest payments while a person is studying an approved course.

The present debate about student funding will have alerted many would-be teachers to the fact that they will be paying interest on their loans while training to be a teacher, and also paying interest on the student loans for their teacher preparation courses. With starting salaries for teachers above the threshold for repayments, teaching doesn’t look like a worthwhile investment, and many are still not signing up to become teachers.

I would urge the government to look into the current funding model for trainee teachers, and to make it a level playing field for all, with no new debt, and no additional interest on undergraduate loans while studying to be a teacher.

Challenging schools still find keeping a headteacher challenging

Posted on by
Reply

Alongside the White Paper, published today by the DfE, The DfE also released a document entitled Schools, school workforce and pupils statistical analysis 2026 Schools, school workforce and pupils statistical analysis 2026

Within this document, I was interested to see a discussion of headteacher turnover by Pupil Premium Decline. This showed that for both primary and secondary schools, but especially for secondary schools, turnover of headteachers was more likely where Pupil Premium levels were higher. Thus, in Band 1, – most deprived – 8.7% of secondary school headteachers changed between November 2024 and November 2025. This compared with just 2.3% of headteacher vacancies in secondary schools in Band 10. The data was taken from the DfE’s own database of teacher records and the School Workforce census.

Readers of my post of yesterday, won’t be surprised by this piece of research Headteacher: recruitment bonus – good value or not? | John Howson

Interestingly, in September 2002, the then NCSL (National College for School Leadership) published a piece of research on headteacher turnover that I conducted for the College. ‘Staying Power: the relationship between headteachers’ length of service and PANDA grades. (PANDA grades were a measure of a school’s performance and schools were graded from A* to E*).

My research looked at secondary schools with either A* or A grades and compared them with schools with E* or E grades.

The research was based upon an analysis of vacancy advertisements for headteacher posts at these schools.

As with today’s research finding, in 2002, A* schools had the greatest percentage of headteachers with more than six years of service, and E* schools the smallest percentage of headteachers with more than six years f service at that school. There were 785 A*/A schools and 780 E*/E schools in the survey.

There was also an association between the PANDA grade and readvertisement rates. 8% of A* vacancies for a headteacher were re-advertised compared with 14% of E* headteacher vacancies, and 49% of schools rated as E.

As headteachers often move from headship into retirement, the age profile of the teaching profession is a factor affecting turnover. A younger profession means fewer headteachers reaching retirement age.

However, the thesis that the more challenging the school, the shorter the term of office of a headteachers, still seems as credible today as it was half a century ago. Whether the government’s policies as foreshadowed in the White Paper will help to change this pattern of turnover and length of service will be interesting to watch.

Overseas applicants boost teacher training numbers

Posted on by
Reply

As well as the White Paper, today also saw the publication of the February data on applications to postgraduate teacher preparation courses. Initial teacher training application statistics for courses starting in the 2026 to 2027 academic year – Apply for teacher training – GOV.UK

The headline number of note is the percentage of applications from outside of the United Kingdom. Last February these applicants totalled just over 6,000, accounting for 24% of all applications. This February, the applicants from outside the United Kingdon now total almost 10,500, and account for 33% of all applications.

The key question that the published data does not reveal, but is of great consequence, is whether these extra 4,000 candidates are applying across the board for all subjects, or are concentrated in just a few subjects?

This question is of real importance, as there is now a split between subjects where ‘offers’ are above last year, and those other subjects where, despite rising unemployment in the wider economy, ‘offers’ in February 2026 are below those from February 2025. Many of these latter subjects will likely miss their target once again this year unless there is a dramatic shift in applications during the second half of the recruitment round, such as last seen in 2020, as a result of the covid pandemic.

Doing better than last year with regard to ‘offers’ are: physics; mathematics; history; design & technology; computing; chemistry, drama, and primary sector courses. English is just about holding its own when compared with February 2025.

Doing less well than in February 2025 are: modern languages; art & design; religious education; physical education; music; geography; classics and biology. Of these subjects, the decline in offers for physical education should be of no concern as the number of ‘offers’ is already more than 900 or more than the combined total of ‘offers’ for art & design; drama; music; religious education and ‘other subjects.

Does this government not care about the arts? I have long campaigned for the return of the music bursary. With music ‘offers’ down at just 110 this February, compared with 139 last February, that is a loss of 29 potential teachers of music, and the gap with last year has widened since the January data were published.

So, are there any other worries? Applications from candidates over the age of 25 appear to be rising faster than from newly graduating students. There are only 128 more applications from the youngest age grouping, compared with 208 from the 45 to 49 age group, and more than 2,000 additional applicants this year from the 25 to 29 age group. It would be helpful to know in which age grouping the additional 4,500 applicants from outside the United Kingdom fall, and which subjects they have applied for this year?

With the increase in applications from men, up from 9,561 to 13,654 being proportionally more than the increase in applications from women, up from 15,735 to 18,224, it would also be informative to know which subjects these additional 4,000 male applicants have applied for, and how many fall into applicants from the ‘rest of the world’ group?

While apprenticeships have shown good growth in applications, higher education courses have had to deal with the bulk of the additional applicants, with more than 5,000 additional applicants. My guess would be that the bulk of the new overseas applicants are targeting higher education courses.

We now enter that period of the recruitment round where fewer undergraduates will be applying until after the examination season, so further growth between now and the July data are most likely from career changers rather than undergraduates. This fact might push the proportion of ’rest of the world’ applicants to an even higher percentage than the 33% recorded this month. Perhaps it is now time for the DfE to review how the data are published in order to make it more useful to those interested in the labour market for teachers?

Schools: the end of local authority involvement?

Posted on by
Reply

When I first started studying the governance of education, way back in 1979, there at that time two popular saying about the school system in England. One was that it was, ‘a partnership between local and national governments’ and the other that it was ‘a national system locally administered.’ A typical examination question was to ask how valid either of these statements were?

That was half a century ago; difficult for me to believe, but true nevertheless. I have witnessed a lot of changes during in the intervening years. Indeed, one of my few academic articles I have published was entitled ‘Variations in local authority provision of education’ and appeared in the Oxford Review of Education way back in the early 1980s. Interestingly, during the Labour government of the period between 1974-79, closing the gap in funding between the best and worst local authorities was a matter of academic interest. Anyone wanting to know more could do worse than read’ Depriving the Deprived’, written by Tunley, Travers and Platt, published in 1979, as it is about the funding of schooling across one London borough over one year.

For a comparison over a longer time period, my review of 50 years of pupil teacher ratios, published last summer and available for download on researchgate at (PDF) PTRS OVER TIME: A REVIEW OF PUPIL TEACHER RATIOS BETWEEN 1974 AND 2024 AND TWO PERIODS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RE-ORGANISATION PTRS OVER TIME: A REVIEW OF PUPIL TEACHER RATIOS

During the 50 years between local government reorganisation in 1974 and 2024, school funding decisions have been removed from local authorities, and nationalised; Education Committees have been abolished, in favour of cabinet government; teacher training and new schemes to prepare teachers have been taken over by Westminster; schools have been persuaded to become academies outwith local authority control, but still under church control if faith schools – if the white Paper leaks are correct all schools will now have to become an academy or free school; further and higher education were liberated from local authority oversight and funding in the early 1990s; ultimate control over place planning has remained with the DfE as only the DfE can sanction new schools being built.

What’s left for local authorities? SEND for a couple more years; admissions- including in-year admissions once the current Bill becomes law – and transport. Frankly, I cannot see local authorities, especially newly reorgnised upper tier authorities, wanting either of these functions in the future. And why would they, as these services can often be poisoned chalices.

So, are we moving to an NHS style system for schooling in England, with little local democratic oversight, and few routes for parents to complain about the education their child is receiving. I fear so.

Does it matter? That’s a matter of opinion. The world of 2026 is vastly different to that of sixty years ago, and it should be easier to produce a more level playing field with all the levers of funding and control being exercise from Westminster.

But I remain sceptical. Westminster has been unable to control issues such as MAT chief executive’s pay and the level of school reserves. At present it isn’t equipped to be a fully functioning operational department along the lines of the NHS of MoD.  It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the White Paper has to say about governance when it is published tomorrow.

White Paper: bad news for rural primary schools

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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