Tag Archives: politics

A broken system: not just mismanagement

Posted on by
Reply

When searching the DfE website this morning for the latest numbers about schools and pupils to allow me to compare the number of teachers per school for different subjects, I was distracted into looking at the number of ‘open notices’ from the DfE to Councils across England. Currently they total around 30 such notices and there are others that have been closed in recent times. These notices refer to the provision of either special needs (SEND) or children’s social services.

There really must be something wrong with a system where nearly 20%, or one in five, of all upper tier local authorities have such notices that are issued to councils for ‘poor’ or ‘inadequate’ performance. I had expected the majority of such notices to be for SEND services, but in fact half are for Children’s Social Services. This raises the question of whether in some authorities, and especially smaller unitary authorities, there is the funding to cope with both SEND and Children’s Social Services?

Of the local authorities with ‘open’ improvement notices for children’s social services, most are small metropolitan districts of unitary authorities.: Liverpool, Nottingham City and the counties of Herefordshire and Worcestershire are the exceptions. The pattern for SEND notices is different, with six counties, four metropolitan districts, four unitary councils and one London borough with ‘open notices.

What is striking about both lists is the geographical split. The relative absence from the list of well-funded London boroughs – only three appear, and only one in the SEND list, compared with eight metropolitan districts really is worthy of note and discussion. Comparing the distribution with my recent report on pupil teacher ratios does suggest that funding, or the lack of it, may play a part.  

If the 16 other authorities with closed notices since 2020 are added to those with ‘open’ notices, then almost a third of all local authorities have been on the ‘naughty step’ with the DfE and Care Quality commission so far in this decade.

If that percentage and the split between types of authorities doesn’t raise questions about why and why some authorities are more likely to be faced with improvement notices than others, then I think we have a serious lack of inquiry.

The relationship between the size of an authority and competence to deliver high quality services is important, both because of the Reform Party’s pledge to cut out waste, and the Labour government’s intention to reform local government. Both need to be seen in light of this list. Is bigger better, or is local government outside London just not well-enough funded

Of course, I must declare a personal interest, since I look over as Cabinet Member for Children’s Service (excluding SEND) after Oxfordshire received a ‘notice’ in the autumn of 2023 about the quality of its SEND provision.

To some extent with SEND, authorities are at the mercy of the NHS, over which they have little power, and that relationship with SEND needs to be investigated thoroughly. Penalizing democratically elected local government for the failing of a nationally run NHS is neither fair not equitable. That the government’s funding of the High Needs Block may add to local government’s problems also needs to be taken into account. Oxfordshire is in the bottom 30% for SEND funding.

Defence Review sets growth target for Cadet Forces

Posted on by
3

The Defence Review published yesterday, and it was interesting to see that it has implications for education. Specifically, the Review includes some recommendations directly aimed at education and young people. The first of these is:

Work with the Department for Education to develop understanding of the Armed Forces among young people in schools.

I assume that will mean allowing recruiting teams into schools to offer career advice, and also, where an understanding of the role of the armed forces and home defence might fit into PSHE lessons.

More specifically, and with a cost attached to it, is the recommendation that:

Expand in-school and community-based Cadet Forces across the country by 30% by 2030, with an ambition to reach 250,000 in the longer term. There should be greater focus within the Cadets on developing STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) skills and exploring modern technology. Defence, wider Government, and partnerships with the private sector must provide appropriate leadership, support, and funding to deliver this expansion.

To reach this goal around 7% of the secondary school population need to be enrolled in cadet forces, or perhaps 10%, if you discount the youngest pupils in Years 7 and 8. If this happens then there is going to be a need for a whole lot of new staff in areas where the schools have been failing to meet recruitment targets for teaching staff for years.

What is the purpose behind this move. What will these young people be expected to do with the skills acquired after leaving school? Last year, at the start of the general election campaign there was a brief discussion about reintroducing conscription. As there is no mention of conscription in the review, might this be the alternative solution.  Although the voluntary scheme is much cheaper and less intrusive than conscription, it begs the question of who will sign up for the new places?

The last sentence in the recommendation suggests a new body might need to be set up to deliver the aims, especially if all the groups mentioned are to be brought together. Would such a new body be led by the MoD, and how will the new community groups recruit the staff for evening and weekend sessions when these days volunteer organisations are regularly struggling to find youth workers? Will local authorities be asked to help play a role in developing this expansion of uniform bodies.

As might be expected, there is a big emphasis in the Review on both the uses of and the protection from drones – the new weapon of war. The war in Ukraine has probably played a role similar to that of the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s in demonstrating how the technology of war can change in one theatre, delivery of the destruction of civilian population centres and other targets, while remaining the same on the ground: opposing armies slogging it out on front lines that resemble the trench system of World War 1.

I was part of the first generation to avoid conscription, and benefitting from that reduction in defence spending being used for improvements in the education sector from the 1960s onwards. It is sobering to remember that in the late 1940s there were something like 1,000,000 British forces personnel in Germany waiting for a war that thankfully never came. But, most of them were conscripts.

I fear now that defence of the realm will consume a much larger part of national resources, and that education as a sector may suffer as a consequence.  

More thoughts on funding schools, ahead of the spending Review

Posted on by
1

Yesterday, I published a post about my initial thoughts on the forthcoming spending review, due next week, and how saving might be made in the education sector.  For a more detailed analysis at the macro level there is also the Institute for Fiscal Studies review Schools and colleges in the 2025 Spending Review | Institute for Fiscal Studies that lays out the options for the government against the background of falling rolls and the challenging economic situation, and now The Defence Review, and all that entails for government spending priorities.

My guess is that the government will direct any extra funding in education to skills and the college sector, especially where it is related to spending on training for employment, and let the schools sector sort out its own future. One exception to this general thesis is SEND, where the government will have to take some action. Sadly, without yet a Report from the Select Committee that has been looking at SEND for the past sixth months.

The nuclear option on spending open to the government, and one that local authorities might have used in the past when they controlled the financing of the schools’ sector, would be to top slice the Schools Block and transfer that funding to the High Needs Block, used to fund special needs, and leave the schools sector to sort out the consequences.

Afterall, education is low down in the polling pecking order for national elections. This also makes sense with the supposed reorganisation of local authorities making the issue of the SEND balances and off-balance sheet deficits being carried by local authorities more of a challenge to fund in the future. However, my bet is that local government reorganisation will be off the agenda while Reform is riding high in the opinion polls. As a result, a top slice this year could be an option.

The Secretary of State has also solved the issue of how to deal with the underachievement of poor White families, by setting up an inquiry. In my view that approach is just kicking the can down the road to avoid taking difficult decisions in the Spending Review. Everyone in education knows the issues, and probably the answers as well: bring back Sure Start or something like it for the under-5s, and focus on making the secondary school curriculum more meaningful for those pupils not heading for higher education at eighteen, and who will probably leave school for college at sixteen.

The Spending Review also needs to come clean on what the pledge around the 6,500 extra teachers means, and how they will be paid for? The IFS makes the point that the college sector needs more than 6,500 extra lecturers to cope with the fact that rolls there won’t be falling over the next few years, and any added working in adult learning will put up the demand for lecturers even more. Switching funds to the college sector solves the issue of how to pay for these extra staff, but will leave the secondary sector with a pupil-teacher ratio in many areas little different to what it was 50 years ago. Hard times for schools ahead?

The Spending Review and savings

Posted on by
Reply

Next week will set the direction for government spending over the rest of this parliament. Although education is a ‘protected’ department that may not mean as much now as it did last year at the time of the general election.

Changes in the geopolitical situation, and an economy where the green shoots are barely peeking through the surface, and could be killed off by the equivalent of one night of freezing temperatures doesn’t bode well for the education sector. This is especially the case when set against falling school rolls and the crisis in the higher education sector. The skills sector might be the one bright spot, and it wouldn’t surprise me if that is where most of the investment will be directed.

The present government is lucky in that the weakening job market means recruiting new teachers will be easier, and the pressure for pay rises might also abate if the choice is more pay for some and redundancies for others. Unions would, in my view, be wise to tackle conditions of service rather than majoring on pay rises and the risk of confrontation with a government that has been generous so far, but might not want to see the limits of that generosity tested.

So, might there be saving to be made?

If there are school closures, will this allow the most expensive and inefficient buildings to be removed from the estate. Why spend time taking out asbestos, if you can just close the school? How would such a policy be managed? Frankly, I have no idea, but to let market forces prevail might have an unnecessary cost attached. So parental choice or rational use of buildings?

And then there is the muddle of academies and the maintained sector.

I looked at the accounts for the period up to August last summer for the 30 single academies and Multi Academy Trusts with schools in one local authority area. The total pay bill for their single highest paid employee came to around £4 million pounds. Now, take out of that total the Trusts where the headteacher is the single highest paid employee, and the total might be around £2 million. Cut this to just five trusts: one each for the two main Christian Churches (CofE and RC) and one each for other primary, secondary and special schools and what might be the savings?

Then there is the audit, legal and professional fees. I doubt whether the private sector charges the same rate as local authorities do to maintained schools. Perhaps academies should be required to employ local authority services, if the quote is lower than that from the private sector?

SEND is the other area where spending needs reviewing. For many, the cost of an EHCP started early in the primary sector should be the first point of focus. Are there differences between schools in different locations, and if so, then why? Can an early diagnosis save costs.

What of Education Other than at School packages? How much are they costing the system, and why are they necessary in such a growing number of cases?

With 150 plus local authorities, how much might be saved from present budgets in order to support investment in teaching and learning in the new world created by the latest technological revolution?

How will the Apprenticeship Levy changes affect schools?

Posted on by
Reply

Will the changes to the Apprenticeship Levy announced today affect schools? I have argued before I this blog that the Apprenticeship Levy is in fact a tax on schools, and especially primary schools, as their individual budgets often all below the threshold for paying the levy, but, unless they are small stand-alone academies, they pay the Levy. This is because they are either maintained schools, where the local authority is the employer, or they are part of MATs or other arrangements where the salary bill crosses the threshold for paying the levy.

Now, a tax may not be a bad thing per se, especially if the proceeds are used for the good of those paying it. When it was first introduced some local authorities were slow to ensure the proceeds of the Levy were used by schools, and ended up returning unused cash to HM Treasury. Hopefully, that doesn’t happen anywhere today.

The announcement by the DfE this morning of the effective abolition of the Level 7 apprenticeships, expressed by the government as: “Refocusing funding away from Level 7 (masters-level) apprenticeships from January 2026”, (DfE Press Notice) comes hard on the heels of the announcement on the 9th May for the school sector about teaching apprenticeships that said:

“postgraduate teaching apprenticeship (PGTA) courses will be slashed from twelve months to nine, aligning to the school year and getting newly trained teachers into the classroom sooner.  

Courses currently run from September to September, meaning trainees typically have to wait months before kicking off their careers, and making it challenging for schools to support apprentices while training.  

The change will be made from August this year and is expected to open up more opportunities to train to teach, as well as accelerating trainees’ journeys to the front of the classroom.” Red tape slashed to get more teachers into classrooms – GOV.UK

On the one hand, the government gives, but on the other hand it could take away in-service opportunities for teacher development where these were paid from the Levy for Level 7 courses. The outcome must not be unspent levy cash once again being returned to the government by employers of teachers and other staff working in schools.

Incidentally, school leaders should check whether the employers of those services they contract out have a policy for using the Apprenticeship Levy that they pay. If they don’t, then schools may not be receiving full value for money for their expenditure.

How will the news affect higher education departments working with pre-service and in-service teachers, and others in the education field? If there is a move away from courses where trainees pay fees towards an employment-based apprenticeship with a salary and associated benefits that might reduce interest in higher education courses. If the removal of Level 7 apprenticeships cuts enrolment on higher degrees that could be a double whammy, coming just at a time when training targets are being affected by falling pupil numbers.  This may not be an easy summer for those responsible for training teachers, even if interest in the profession is once again on the increase.

Home Guard or Civil Defence Force?

Posted on by
Reply

A new home guard will be established to protect key British infrastructure from attacks by hostile states and terrorists , under plans reportedly put forward in a major defence review. The Independent Sunday 18 May 2025

Less than a year after the issue of whether or not conscription was under consideration by a Conservative government surfaced during the early days of the 2024 general election, we now have a Labour Prime Minister presiding over a defence review that apparently wants to revive a part-time volunteer army. Whatever happened to The Territorials and their companion volunteer reserve forces in the other armed services?

We will have to await the full Defence Review to understand what is in the minds of those charged with the defence of the ream in the 21st century. At a time when there are more teachers in training than the whole establishment of the Royal Navy, (a factoid that never ceases to amaze me), something clearly has to be done about staffing our defence forces.

With the armed services no doubt open to pressure to reduce their numbers of Commonwealth recruits, a group that don’t often receive a mention in the debate about immigration, a review is obviously necessary if we need more people in our defence forces. Incidentally, I saw a post on LinkedIn recently that suggested there were days when the recruiting offices across the whole of Scotland only managed to recruit one person a day into all arms of the forces.

Will the Review consider the issue of cadet forces for young people. The remnants of these units are now rather haphazardly spread across the country, although the private schools have still, at least in the boys’ school sector, managed to retain many of their Combined Cadet Forces.

The CCF also used to be a feature in the State secondary school sector, at least in selective schools, but largely disappeared in the early 1960s, around the time that conscription was abolished. I recall that the school I attended has such a Force in 1958, when I joined the school, but by the time I reached the possible age to join, it had been disbanded.

Will an expansion of such forces be part of the proposals, or will the needs be just for adult volunteers. And what about the Royal Observer Corps – will that again feature as a part of the volunteer defence force?

Personally, I think a civil defence force that has wider uses than just preparing for a war is a more attractive proposition to sell to the general public. Afterall, even if saboteurs were to play an important part in the scheme of things, we already have the Civil Nuclear Police force to guard our high-risk power stations – and, incidentally, they are the only police force where all officers are trained and can carry firearms on a regular basis.

A civil defence force could help in times of national emergencies, such as floods, fires and other times of high risk – where increasingly firefighters are already a mixture of full-time professional and part-time retained officers, such as those that tragically lost their lives last week at the Bicester Motion conflagration –.

You only have to think of the fire bombs of the animal extremists that were inserted into clothing in shops to know how recruiting soldiers to stamp around outside possible targets is little more than gesture defending.

I will wait with interest, to see what actually the government will be proposing.  


Are there savings to be made in education?

Posted on by
Reply

One of the tasks faced by someone no longer a councillor is to dispose of the vast accumulation of papers and reports collected over the years. While doing so it is possible to come across long forgotten articles. One such was an article that I wrote for the TES in their edition of 17th September 2010 that was headed ‘how to cut millions of pounds without harming the chalk face’.  Well, I suppose that ought to be the interactive whiteboard these days rather than the chalk face.

How relevant today are the suggestions I made at the end of a period when the Labour government led by Gordon Brown has favoured spending on education?

Back then, at a time when rolls were rising in primary schools, but still falling in the secondary sector: the opposite of the current situation, I focused firstly on the pension scheme and the cost of allowing private schools to be members of the teachers’ pension fund. I warned that uncapped salaries could risk bankrupting the scheme if there was either no cap on salaries or contributions didn’t rise.

In the event, the decision was taken to increase contributions and to ensure new entrants were on average salaries for their pensions rather than the more expensive final salary scheme previously available. However, the scheme is still massively expensive, especially as many pensioners are living longer. (note as a recipient of a public sector pension, I have an interest in anything the government does to public sector pensions).

My second suggestion was to reform teacher training to a more school-based system that required secondary schools only to train for the staff that they would need. In a period of falling rolls, it is easy for the DfE’s Teacher Supply Model that uses historical data to calculate the number of teachers needed to overestimate the needs of schools to recruit teachers. With a period of falling rolls currently facing schools, this is certainly an area where discussion might be helpful, especially after the recent announcement of more training places for graduate apprenticeships. Wasting training places, either for teachers that cannot find a teaching post in England or that start work in the private school sector, can lead to a mis-direction of funds.

Allied to the previous point of training, in 2010, I highlighted the issue of redundancies, and whether a system should be employed whereby all vacancies on offer by all state-funded schools should first be offered to those teachers facing redundancy: otherwise, the cost of redundancy payments for teachers that might then walk into another teaching post was a waste of money. How to handle the labour market for teachers during a period of falling rolls is something the DfE might still need to consider.

My concluding point related to Labour’s flagship projects. Of course, the one of those that mushroomed under the Conservative governments was the creation of Multi-Academy Trusts, each with its own chief officer and backroom staff. In Oxfordshire, there are around 20 MATs. Reducing that to say, five, could reduce central office costs, and allow the cash saved to be diverted into in-service training, and the recreation of an advisory and inspection service to stand between schools and ofsted, as well as identifying the future leaders of our schools, something the present system does not always do well. Saving just ten MAT CEO posts at £150,00 each might save around £2 million a year after on-costs have been taken into consideration.

Where there are falling rolls, unless overheads are reduced, the cash available for teaching and learning will undoubtedly be reduced in a period where the demands on government spending for areas such as defence and policing are uppermost in the mind of a government that doesn’t want to raise taxes, and thus may struggle to find extra cash for schooling.

‘Fully funded’ often doesn’t mean what it says for school budgets

Posted on by
Reply

As usual, there is discussion about whether the recommendation of the School Teachers Remuneration Body (the STRB) about the level of increase for teachers’ salaries will be fully funded by the DfE this year. Of course, it depends upon what you mean by ‘fully funded’.  If the amount set aside by the DfE is less than the total pay bill, then clearly it won’t be fully funded.

However, even if it is ‘fully funded’ at the overall level, will that mean it will be fully funded for each and every individual school? Such an outcome is highly unlikely. Consider two schools; one has many young teachers and a high annual turnover of staff; the other, has a settled staff, mostly being paid at the top of their pay grade. Now also assume the first school is a maintained school with no top slicing, and the other part of a MAT that both top slices and pool reserves.

Are the two schools funded differently, assuming they are in the same local authority, with no differences in area cost adjustments or other factors. For the most part they won’t be, because of the working of the National Funding Formula that is largely based upon an amount per pupil.

There was less concern among school leaders about whether the pay bill was being met in full when pupil numbers were on the increase: it becomes much more an issue under the National Funding Formula when rolls are falling, and, as a result, a school’s income is set to reduce going forward.  

How did schools get into this position? In the 1990s when budgets were being devolved to schools from local authorities, schools could for the first time use their new freedoms to set their own staffing patterns.

Before the changes resulting from the Education Reform Act of 1988, local authorities set the staffing patterns for schools. Each school was allocated a Group, mostly from Grade 1 for the smallest of primary schools to Grade 7 for the largest secondary schools. Each grade had a point score, and that related to factors such as the number of promoted posts, and whether the school could employ a deputy head or heads. Special schools had their own grading that reflected their more complex staffing structure. The local authority picked up the staffing tab, much as some MATs do today.

All this central funding largely went out of the window with the devolution of funding to schools, although the salary of headteachers – especially in the primary sector – remained largely tied to the former group sizes for many years, often until the uncontrolled introduction of executive headteachers.

In these days of modern technology, it would be perfectly possible for the DfE to provide an uplift of the percentage recommended by the STRB that was related to each school’s salary bill. This would meet the need to ensure no school lost out from an average pay increase for all schools, but would have other consequences. I doubt the DfE would allow schools complete freedom over their staffing structure that they currently enjoy. Perhaps we might even see a return to the sort of structure that disappeared after schools’ gained control of their budgets: now there’s an interesting thought for a Labour government.

What should we do about children not in school?

Posted on by
Reply

Is it time to start looking for a new solution to the issues surrounding children not in school? Currently too many young people are missing school for a variety of different reasons.

How about a ‘virtual school’ for all children not on a ‘normal’ school roll? The Local Authority where they live would assume responsibility on day one for any child without a school place, whether the child has moved into an area, and there is no mid-year SEND place available, (or other school places) or the young person has been excluded by a school, and has not yet been assigned another school.

Then there are those for who the normal school environment is not longer suitable. They should have a clearly defined place within the education system, managed by the local authority. Only in exceptional cases should responsibility for education be ceded to those parents that ask the state to educate their children.

Many young people might remain on the roll of the virtual school for a short-period of time. However, it would ensure no child for whom the state had assumed responsibility went missing from schooling.

Using the expertise gathered from the established model of virtual schools for children in care together with the work of hospital schools and services should ensure that a body of expertise would quickly develop to ensure all young people, whatever their challenges, had a programme of schooling mapped out for them, even if it didn’t look like the established regime of the traditional school day. However, there would be an expectation of regular contact between the virtual school and the pupil, with individual timetables of learning controlled through the school.

With a pupil being on a school roll at all times, parents would know that their children were part of a framework that includes inspection and has the child at its centre, and also removes the sense of isolation many children not in school can experience. The provision of a virtual school should also reduce the need for the use of section 61 of The Children and Families Act 2014.

The ‘virtual school’ would be able to commission ‘alternative provision’ from registered providers and in some cases be able to transfer the pupil to the roll of the alternative provider, where that was appropriate.

Many pupils in the care of the new virtual school would have special educational needs, as do many children that are the responsibility of the current virtual schools for young people in care. I believe that the notion of a ‘school’ is the best way to educate such children. The virtual school would work with both the SEND sector and the NHS, but be clear what is education and what is therapy, and the responsibility of the NHS.

The present funding model for SEND doesn’t work, and leaves many local authorities underfunded, and a small number of pupils costing significant amounts, while not being on the roll of any school. A virtual school should bring in-house many of the costs currently charged by the private sector for tutoring and other learning and allow some economies of scale to be developed. But, better education for every pupil must be the main aim: no child should be left out of schooling for a single day.

Pragmatism versus Principles

Posted on by
Reply

Every politician should have principles. Some might call them values, and others might designate them as ideologies. Whatever name you use, they provide a yardstick by which to judge any government.

I know that there were two key message I passed on to senior leaders when I became a cabinet member in Oxfordshire. One was ‘no bin bags’ and the other ‘no young person on remand should be in Feltham YOI’. I might explain my reasoning behind each of these principles in a latter post, but for now it is enough to know that both were accepted by officers and, I believe, achieved.

Looking at the wider context of the present Labour government, there is one clear principle that they adopted quickly: tax the private school market through VAT and changes to business rate relief. This was the introduction of a long-standing view of the Labour Party that such schools are divisive and not good for society as a whole. This despite some Labour members sending their own children to such schools in the past.

Another, and equally important principle for the Labour party in the 1960s and 1970s was the drive to non-selective secondary education. Indeed, it was Shirley William that introduced the 1976 Education Act, the main purpose of which had been to introduce into law:

1The comprehensive principle

  • Subject to subsection (2) below, local education authorities shall, in the exercise and performance of their powers and duties relating to secondary education, have regard to the general principle that such education is to be provided only in schools where the arrangements for the admission of pupils are not based (wholly or partly) on selection by reference to ability or aptitude.

Education Act 1976

Special schools and schools for music and dancing were exempt from Clause 1.

The Act was only ever tested in the courts once, when the government took North Yorkshire County Council to court over provision in the Ripon area. Despite losing in the court, the Council ignored the judgment, as it was made very close to the 1979 election that Labour was expected to lose, and indeed did do so, to the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher. Clause 1 of the 1976 Act was repealed by the incoming government in July 1979, just two months after the general election.

Since then, we have had nearly 50 years of mostly the ‘status quo’ remaining in place regarding the organisation of secondary education. It is interesting that the Blair government, elected in 1997, using the strapline of ‘education, education, education’ started off by introducing tuition fees for higher education, but never tackled the secondary school system.

I wonder why the current Labour government, just like the 1997 Blair administration, supported by a large majority in parliament hasn’t discussed a common framework for a national schooling system to put alongside the National Funding Formula created by the Conservatives?