Tag Archives: politics

NEETS: the journey starts at six not sixteen

Posted on by
Reply

In my previous post, I looked at the PISA survey comments about teachers. I am sure that there is a degree of correlation between high-quality teaching on the one hand, and student outcomes at the end of each transition stage in a young person’s education journey on the other hand. Inputs affect outputs.

However, the equation is not as simple as that. For the most part, learners need to engage to succeed. I came across this interesting paragraph about NEETs, in a briefing note written by the Confederation of School Trusts.

‘The larger lesson is therefore that NEET should not principally be understood as a status to be

remedied after the event. It is better understood as the possible end-point of a progressive

weakening of the connections between a young person and the institutions that should carry

them from childhood into adult economic and civic life.’ Preventing young people from becoming NEET – 2026-09-01.pdf – Google Drive

While I am not a fan of academies, mainly because of the absence of local democratic involvement, it doesn’t mean that I don’t respect the work many within that sector undertake.

This briefing note is one example of what I think is a great summary of how the risk of becoming a NEET starts on day one of schooling. Along with Sir Nick Clegg when he was Deputy Prime Minister and concerned about progress of under-fives, I would also argue that the risk of a journey to becoming a NEET begins even earlier. It is interesting to re-read a blog post written more than a decade ago in January 2015.  Ending child illiteracy by 2025 | John Howson

The closure of Sure Start centres was, in retrospect, one of the worst decisions of the coalition government. Sadly, like the Academies Act 2010 that produced the ‘hell for leather’ race to academisation, I wonder if the Liberal Democrat part of the Coalition Government could, perhaps, have fought harder to prevent both outcomes.

My two current suggestions are: monitor absence from day one of school or nursery and identify where any undue amount of absence starts to affect the acquisition of the fundamental building blocks of learning to read, write (if still considered necessary) and learn the basics of numeracy.

The primary system of teacher and class-based progress allied to an aim of measuring outcomes by eleven and transfer to secondary school might be worth re-considering. What percentage of those that fall behind with the basics ever catch up? How successful are interventions and the use of support staff, or are many of them just childminding? Of course, both won’t have immediate results, but we have to do more than firefighting when someone reaches sixteen.

In one of my earliest posts on this blog, in 2013, Quality Assurance v Quality Control | John Howson I discussed the issue of how you deal with failure to reach an expected standard in terms of making cars. Some of those industrial techniques apply to the learning process. Don’t wait until measurement points to remediate, but diagnose where the block to progress is taking place and intervene effectively at that point.  NEETs mostly don’t want to be NEETs, and we need to find ways after 150 years of state education to ensure all that have the capability to success can do so.

The problem of ensuring enough jobs for all is someone ese’s problem. Let’s make sure the state school system no longer produces NEETs that are not capable of entering adult life and the workplace.  

Can the government afford to reorganise local government?

Posted on by
Reply

Is local government reform dead in the water? Plans for major overhaul of councils halted – BBC News Council officials that have spent the summer putting in place arrangements for new shadow council elections next May, will either be delighted or annoyed at the waste of precious resources or upset that the changes have been delayed.

The government cites new legal advice. I assume this means that they have been told that they would lose any Judicial Review of the process to reach the current stage of reorganisation.

I wonder whether the Treasury has taken a look at the proposals and said that the changes wouldn’t save money, and might cost more to operate the same services. Take Oxfordshire, where the proposals were for three unitary councils, each with a director of Children’s Services, at an extra cost of perhaps £300,000 plus on-costs for three Directors compared to the current one for the county. Multiply that by 17 councils, and that’s probably £3mn just for Children’s Services. Add just five new directors for other services that cannot be absorbed into the role of existing district council officer’s jobs, and the bill start to look very much like an expensive exercise. This is even before you add in the cost of Mayors for most of these areas.

So, what looks like a good example of poorly planned reorganisation of councils, is starting to look like an expensive waste of money. Hard luck on Surrey, whether the former county has already been split into two unitary councils, just as happened to Northamptonshire after the former county ran into financial trouble.

I cannot say that I am sorry for the pause, and will also not be sorry if reorganisation is kicked into the long grass, as I am not sorry. The prospect of funding fin Children’s services for areas with high needs for both SEND and children in care, being funded in the future only by a small number of council tax payers rather than spreading the cost over a wider area, as at present, was a frightening prospect.

Unless the current pause is short-lived, and that seems unlikely if the process was flawed, then even 2028 for a restart of shadow elections looks like a remote possibility.

Sorting out the relationship between councils and academies is a much bigger priority for me than shifting the arrangements for school admissions and other functions between existing and new councils.

I guess some officers may be looking at promotion opportunities disappearing, but I also guess councillors in Rutland, the smallest county, will be overjoyed, as may be those councillors nearer home in West Berkshire, as they may well be able to remain as a separate unitary council rather than being swallowed up into the new Ridgeway Council.

However, everyone will really want an outcome decided, as a pause is in nobody’s interest, whatever their outcome might be.

Paying for a free press

Posted on by
Reply

This is the latest of my August holiday posts. Somehow, even on holiday on the other side of the world, education stories worth commenting upon still appear. Last Monday (17TH August), The Sydney Morning Herald carried an opinion piece headed, ’Good education ideas need the right execution’.

Interestingly, the story was about the success of the Multi Academy Programme in raising education standards in England. The author of the piece stated that ‘A key enabler of England’s progress has been the Multi-Academy Trust (MAT). He added that  ‘Rather than every school running its own back office, finance, HR and administration those functions are shared across the group’.

The author concluded that the creation of MATs allows teachers to spend more time on teaching and learning, and, hence on raising standards. In essence, this is a critique of the Thatcher government’s 1987 education reforms that took responsibility for schools away from democratically accountable local councils and, by devolving budgets to individual schools, made each school a small business in its own right.

I don’t disagree with Gant Rule’s basic thesis in his Sydney Morning Telegraph opinion piece that schools are better run as part of a larger organisation than as a small business. Where we part company is over the matter of local democratic oversight of schools.

Interestingly, opposite Mr Rules opinion piece in the newspaper is a full page advert placed by The McKinnon organisation that aims to ‘to strengthen the standard of political leadership and improve how our country is governed’.

It seems odd to me that an organisation championing such views about governance should sanction an opinion piece that seems to be in direct opposition to its stated values. This is because in England, MATs are subject to no local political control.

Additionally, a MAT might well have schools spread across the country and thus be in competition with other MATs for pupils and staff with no local accountability for any of its schools.

Indeed, regular readers of my blog will know of the campaign I supported to bring in-year admissions back into a single system rather than allowing MATs to drive a coach and horses through any sensible local planning. That privilege was certainly not in the spirit of improving how England’s education system was governed and was especially harmful for children taken into care and forced to change school mid-year (search for Jacob’s Law om johnohowson.wordpress for more details). The 2026 Education Act in England has returned all in-year admissions to the oversight of local authorities, a bonus for local democracy.

As a former county councillor, and cabinet member for Children’s Services, I am not unbiased in the discussions about who should run schools in England.

However, I find it interesting that a newspaper can publish an. opinion piece by Mr Rule opposite a full-page advertisement from the organisation Mr Rule co-founded. Perhaps the declaration that the piece is part of a partnership between the Herald newspaper and McKinnon makes it alright.  

Unlike Mr Rule, I believe that schools should serve their local communities, and that MATs rarely recognise that fact. Councillors can be voted out of office: CEOs of MATs are safe from local scrutiny. There must be some discussion about how democratic the MAT model of school governance is and how it fits into the McKinnon’s vision for the health of any democracy, either in England or Australia?

‘PedXing’, and ‘this way for the nuclear bunker’

Posted on by
Reply

August is known as the silly season. It is also the holiday season in the northern hemisphere. So, perhaps not surprisingly, this blog is having a bit of a holiday from writing just about education.

This post is being written from Dubai, so why the headline? Well, when I first visited the USA ,in the summer of 1968, these were the two signs that I saw that stuck in my mind. The first, because we have no word sign for pedestrian crossings in the United Kingdom at that time, the transport Ministry preferring pictograms. The second because, although only a couple of years after the Cuban Missile crisis, there were no signs in Britain of what people should do if the threat of nuclear war became a reality. Were the British just more phlegmatic, or just further away from the action? I suppose an ICBM from the USSR could have hit New York, and in the UK were were still more concerned about the threat of a conventional war. In the late 1960s, the British Armed forces still had over 50,000 troops stationed in Germany in case of a threat from the East.

As an aside, that threat in the summer of 1968, while I was in North America, came when Russian troops invaded what was then Czechoslovakia and put an end to the ‘Prague Spring’. In the USA, the threat turned out to be internal, not least to the Democratic Party with assassinations, and the riots outside the Democratic Party’s convention in Chicago.

But, back to the point of this post. After three days in Dubai and a visit to Fujairah, another Emirate in the UAE on the Gulf of Oman, I have seen no signs of either anxiety about what has been happening in the Gulf for the past six months, nor any warning to the population of what to do if there was a drone or missile attack. All feels exactly as it has been on my other visits to Dubai, the last of which was a recently as 2024. The building boom goes on, with ever more extravagant design for high rise buildings: bits chopped ot, bridges connecting two buildings at a high level, and almost any other non-functional design you can image, and a few you probably cannot.

To add an education note; the UAE, and especially Dubai is an important location for British-style schools, many independent schools have offshoots here, free from the demands of the VAT-person. There is also the offshoot of one state school: something I wrote about earlier. see What is the role of the State in schooling? | John Howson There are also many schools for the nationals from the Indian sub-continent that make up much of the workforce in Dubai where employees have been able to bring their families.

i did wonder whether I should have tried to export Drone Football as a new game on the back of the World Cup, but this was a holiday, so perhaps that’s for another time. If you are interested, drop me a note in the comments and I will put you in touch with the organisers of the game in Oxfordshire.

Are teachers better paid?

Posted on by
Reply

Way back in 2014 I wrote a post that attracted a significant number of views Be a teacher: earn £12-15 per hour? | John Howson (More than 1,500 in the month it appeared, and many more since).

As August is often a slack time for new data, I thought it would be interesting to see how teachers have fared financially since I originally wrote that post in 2014.

Interestingly, the government view of teachers no doubt helps to define the profession in the public mind, and that of some journalists and commentators, as one that doesn’t need to work very hard to earn a living. Hence the following statement for ‘Employee Earnings in the UK: 2025’

  1. Full-time is defined as employees working more than 30 paid hours per week (or 25 or more for the teaching professions). Employee earnings in the UK – Office for National Statistics

I don’t find that helpful, even though it is the minimum and it flies in the face of the DfE’s own diary research. See Working lives of teachers and leaders wave 4: qualitative report – GOV.UK and Working lives of teachers and leaders wave 4 research report page 24 that contains the following:

Hours worked

Teachers and leaders both reported working fewer hours on average in their most recent full week of work in 2025 compared with all previous years (Figure 3.1).

Average weekly working hours were as follows:

• leaders: 55.5 hours, down from 56.6 in 2024, 57.4 in 2023 and 56.8 in 2022

• teachers: 46.9 hours, down from 48.1 in 2024, 49.4 in 2023 and 48.7 in 2022

Among leaders, this pattern was driven by those working full time in particular (56.5 hours vs. 57.6 in 2024, 58.2 in 2023 and 57.5 in 2022), while for teachers, average hours were lower among both those working full time and those working part time.

The good news is teachers, and school leaders, are working fewer hours; the bad news is that they are still working nearly a 10-hour day during term-time. Why should the government still set the starting benchmark for a full-time teacher at 25 hours?

Anyway, assuming teachers work for 195 days a year (190 with pupils and 5 other statutory working days) and ten hours a day, to include the weekends, and that make 50 hours a week, close enough to the 46.9 hours of the diary study.

In September 2026, a teacher at the bottom of the scale, on M,1 will be paid £34,069 if working outside the London pay zone. This equates to £17.60p per hour for the 1950 hours.  Now assume that the average teacher does some ‘work’ in the remaining 13 weeks. School trips, CPD, preparation for next year, turning up at school on two exam results days, reading the tes or schoolsweek each week in order to keep informed, all adds up to work. Assuming seven weeks of work at an average of two hours per day, add an extra 70 hours to the total, bringing it to 2060 hours, and a rate of £16.60 per hour. That leaves six week for holidays, similar to most other public servants if you include public holidays.

Now the minimum hourly wage in England for an adult has been £12.71p since the 1st April 2026. So, a new teacher, at the bottom of the scale starts at around £4 per hour above the minimum wage. I assume the Low Pay Commission that recommends the minimum wage likely doesn’t take into account repayment of student debt when calculating the rate for the Minimum Wage. Teachers will, in many cases have accrued four years of student debt thy need to service straightaway at the starting salary of £34,069p. For those on Plan 5, this could reduce their income by around 40-50p per hour, reducing the hourly rate to just over £16.00p.

Is it time to review the Teachers’ Pay and Conditions to make much clearer what teachers being paid to do, and what they should either expect additional payments for undertaking the work, or genuine time off in lieu. No longer can teaching operate some unofficial form of ‘employer-driven flexitime’ that is little changed from when I joined the profession as a teacher in 1971.

Finally, anyone being pay on the Unqualified Teacher rate at the bottom of the scale, might be receiving a salary much closer to the Minimum Way. If they have an annual contract that means they need to work similar hours to their qualified colleagues, then they might even be being paid below the Minimum Wage: perish the thought.

So, enjoy August and ask yourself, are you being paid for the time you are spending on school work and furthering your career? How much might you charge per hour for tutoring?

TVEI and the Manchester Bacc: same problem, same solution?

Posted on by
Reply

I hesitate to couple together Andy Burnham, our new Prime Minster, and Mrs Thatcher, one of most marmite Prime Minsters’, but they do both seem to have an interest in the role of education in preparing young people for work.

In 1982, Mrs Thatcher introduced a new scheme in what has been described in the following terms by a researcher:

The Technical Vocational Education Initiative (TVEI) was intended to instil a significant element of vocational and technical education into the curricula of mainstream schools and colleges (Williams and Yeomans, 1994). It was the first major initiative by central Government in curriculum development. The pilot was announced by then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the House of Commons on 12th November 1982. Learning from the past Paper No. 6

The new initiative by Andy Burnham initiative is described in the following terms:

Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham said: 

“For too long the English education system has been built around the needs of just a third [sic] of young people who go to university. That means that every year, thousands go through school without a clear path into a good career. 

Our answer is the MBacc – a game-changing new plan for technical education. We’re using our devolved powers to reset the scales and give young people a clear line of sight to good jobs and the steps that will take them there. 

If we don’t make this change now, it could be the single biggest barrier to future growth – and to the life chances of young people here. The needs of our economy are changing, and right now the system is not capable of keeping pace and meeting the needs of businesses or the ambitions of the next generation.” 

Unlike the English Baccalaureate, which is geared towards the subjects top universities value, each MBacc gateway will guide young people to the subjects and qualifications most valued by the city-region’s employers. The gateways draw on the latest labour market data and provide a clear line of sight to high quality jobs in Greater Manchester’s growing economy. There will also be clear MBacc pathways for those who want careers in the emergency services or the Bee Network.  Andy Burnham unveils plan to turbocharge growth in Greater Manchester with new technical education route, the Greater Manchester Baccalaureate – Greater Manchester Combined Authority Accessed 29th  July 2026 0955

Interestingly, Burnham lists the following subject as part of the MBacc.

Engineering 

Design & Technology 

Business Studies 

Drama 

Music 

Performing Arts 

Regular readers of this blog will know that many of these are subjects that have difficult in recruiting new entrants into teaching. In the case of music, this is a subject where the DfE has slashed the ITT target. Engineering doesn’t have a target, so is probably in ‘other subjects’. Design and Technology is only filing its places as, like music, the target has been reduced

SubjectTarget 2026/27July offersFill: July viewJuly AcceptedFill on accepted
Chemistry6901460YES1302YES
Biology675629PROBABLY466POSSIBLY
Mathematics20002953YES2567YES
Design & Technology620701YES630YES
Art & Design605709YES590YES
Geography685549N466NO
Classics7545NO37NO
English19801835POSSIBLY1535POSSIBLY
Drama370318POSSIBLY263NO
Business Studies1200357NO267NO
Music260266YES220YES
Religious Education450349NO294NO
Others2035508NO414NO
History5201112YES952YES
Modern Languages10851363YES1172YES
Physics8101600YES1438YES
Physical Education6551551YES1326YES
Computing565961YES808YES

Andy Burnham must be careful not to announce a policy he cannot deliver nationally without a strategy for teacher supply, otherwise the very schools he seeks to help may be the ones that cannot recruit the teachers in a market where supply nowhere near meets demand on a national scale.

Manchester is blessed, as is the North West as a whole, with more ITT places than most of the rest of England. The test of any Prime Minister is whether he can scale up a local initiative into a credible national policy? The first step would be for Lucy Powell to take ownership of the policy.

Lucy Powell: a bad start

Posted on by
1

I know the Secretary of State for Education has only been in post for less than a week, and is obviously learning the ropes, so perhaps the following appeared in her predecessor’s red box for sign off. Nevertheless, it doesn’t look like a good start.

Conditions of grant: intensive training and practice grant for accredited ITT providers – GOV.UK

Publishing a ‘conditions of grant’ information to ITT providers on the 23rd July for courses starting this September seems a very poor piece of management. I know this is not a new grant, but there seem to be new demands that might involve re-arranging elements of courses at extremely short notice.

Now, you can argue, ITT providers should have already incorporated these elements into their courses, and I am not aware if any warning was given to providers of the changes ahead. No doubt someone can tell me in the comments.

The cash is also small beer compared with the fees for training, but for larger providers wanting to claim in excess of £40,000 the audit requirement do seem a bit onerous. Fortunately, smaller provider can self-certify, but must keep full records, adding to their burden.

These seem like sensible requirements, so the real issue is the timing. Do civil servants not understand the rhythm of the school year? Have these same civil servants considered how courses are planned, and the need to work in partnership between the ITT provider, whether school, university or private provider. Each and every school being used will need to see trainees practice adheres to the new requirements.

This will be challenging enough for secondary schools, but at least many will be back at work by the time the exam results season comes round in mid-August. However, I suspect making adjustments will be more of a challenge for primary schools involved in ITT placements. Of course, trainees won’t be in school on day one in September, but making changes at the very busy start of the school-year is not ideal.

Perhaps the new Secretary of State could consider an embargo on any new changes for the school-year being introduced more than a month before the end of the summer term or after the 30th June, whichever comes first.

It would be a shame to see any ITT provider threatened with de-accreditation for failing to meet the requirements of a grant only notified to them less than six weeks before the start of their courses, and during the middle of the key employer-driven flexitime period, when most are required to take annual leave.

Civil servants can take leave at any time, teachers and ITT staff cannot, and the DfE should respect that fact. Placing any extra requirements on schools and ITT staff at this time of year is poor policy-making in practice.

Hopefully, the Secretary of State will listen to the concerns about timing raised by schools and the ITT sector, and make sure grant requirements are not imposed during the summer holiday period, unless absolutely necessary; I don’t think this change is in that category, and the DfE should make clear any changes do not need to come into force until January 2027, allowing reasonable time for planning.

Free bus transport to age 16: a mistake?

Posted on by
Reply

Rumours are flying around that our new Prime Minister wants to mandate free bus travel for everyone up to the age of sixteen. This would just leave those between 16 and some point in a person’s 60s paying for public transport.

Why do I question whether this policy is a mistake? Not because I think it is wrong, it isn’t, although it suffers from the same issues as any other universal benefit, by including those that could pay for the service, as well as those that benefit. Still, that issue can be dealt with through general taxation, something our previous Prime Minister never seemed to realise when creating the Winter Fuel Allowance debacle that set him on the road to the end of his premiership.

In the case of free bus travel, could this be something that Mr Burnham has looked at through the lens of an urban mayor, with little lifetime experience of rural areas?  

Free bus transport should be extended to age 18, not stop at 16, in order to come into line with the official, but not statutory, learning leaving age. If David Blunkett is advising Mr Burnham, he should be pressing this case as a former distinguished Secretary of State for Education.

If Mr Burnham wants to reduce the number of NEETs, making them pay to travel to college after Year 11 won’t help his case, especially in rural areas, where there may not even be a bus service. If Mr Burnham is to be a Prime Minister for the country, and not just a Labour Prime Minster, then he must understand the needs of all young people, regardless of where they live.

I have suggested before, that 16-18 year olds in rural areas wanting to go to college, where there is no possible bus route, face a real deterrent. My advice was to remove motor Insurance tax from vehicles taxed in the name of a 16-18 year old, and for their sole use.

Mr Burnham should also make it clear how any policy about free bus travel would link to parental choice of schooling? Again, free travel in urban areas means parental choice is not an issue, but it is in rural areas, where free travel to the ‘nearest school’ has been the norm since 2014.  

The small group that really needs a change in policy to align with the principle of free bus travel to 18 are those young people living in rural areas with selective schools. Kent, springs to mind, along with Essex, Buckinghamshire and Gloucestershire.

In these areas, taking the selection test for secondary school is seen as a parental choice, and doesn’t therefore qualify for free transport. This is an attack on the less well off working and living in rural areas. If Mr Burnham wants to mandate free transport for all to age 16 or, as I prefer 18, anyone living in a rural area and passing the selection test for a selective school should be provided with free transport.

Of course, Mr Burnham could be really brave, and reintroduce the 1976 Education Act, associated with the late Shirely Williams, and require all secondary schools to be non-selective, except in few isolated cases of national schools for certain talents in music, ballet and dance. Mr Blair’s government never saw the need to make that change, but, perhaps, Mr Blunkett might now have his opportunity to make the change with such a large Labour majority at Westminster.

Free transport to 16, is good, but not good enough, please, make it free transport to 18, at least to an approved education facility.

London schools and challenging pupils: better outcomes than elsewhere?

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, I wrote a blog post about the rate of exclusions and suspensions from schools in London and the other regions of England of pupils eligible for Free School Meals as a part of a series about whether better funded schools were able to keep more of their pupils in schools. As promised in that post, I have also looked at the position with regard to the main ethnic, groups and a few of the less considered sub-grouping. Are London schools overfunded? | John Howson

As the following table shows, the picture for London is much more mixed with respect to the different ethnic groupings than for pupils eligible for Free School Meals.

London had the lowest rate of suspensions for five ethnic groups in the primary school sector, and four in the secondary school sector.

In respect of permanent exclusions, where rates are generally very low, and a single exclusion can affect the rate significantly, London had the lowest rate in six of the nine ethnic groups for the primary school sector and was joint equal in a seventh group. In the secondary school sector, London had the lowest rate in only two categories, but was joint lowest in another three groups- mostly were there were no permanent exclusions in this group in a number of regions, including London.

The position in special schools was somewhat different, as shown in the table.

London was not the lowest region in any ethnic grouping in ‘suspensions’ in the special school sector, and was only joint lowest in ‘permanent exclusions’. In most cases there were no permanent exclusions in these groups in any of the regions listed as ‘joint’ lowest, including in the London region. As pupils may attend some special schools from different local authorities to that where they live, and the funding for such schools is not through the  ‘School Block’ but was through the discredited ‘High Needs Block’, it is difficult to read anything into the results for the special school sector, except to say that no other region has the same level of outcome as the London region.

London schools contain a much more ethnically diverse group of pupils than schools in some other of the English regions, notably the North East and South West regions. Despite this fact, or possible because the familiarity of dealing with pupils from a wide range of different ethnic groups, often in the same classroom, and sometimes having come to school in England from war-tern or other challenging environments, have meant policies are in place to deal with situations that were less common outside the capital’s schools, London as a region still outperformed any other region in terms of being in lowest place of any region either on its own or in joint lowest position.

One can wonder: is this due to the funding being better than elsewhere? The funding formula school prevent that outcome for primary and secondary schools, if not for special schools. However, as I asked in the previous post in this series, is it the fact that funding includes a London allowance important, as the extra cash may go further if London schools employ younger, and thus cheaper teachers than in some other parts of England.

Do London schools use their cash for more classroom assistants and other staff likely to help reduce the level of suspensions and exclusions?

The data is intriguing, and worthy of more analysis than I have time to undertake. Are there also lesson to be learnt from London schools about how to reduce the number of pupils ‘kicked out’ of schools?

Finally, do academies or maintained schools exclude or suspend more pupils in different groups of pupils? What role, if any, do local authorities still play in helping keep down the levels of suspensions and exclusions? Time for me to go search the research literature.

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?