More teachers take maternity leave

Posted on June 29, 2022 by John Howson

TeachVac records the reason for vacancies as part of its intelligence gathering about the labour market for teachers in England. Each vacancy is classified and placed into one of three categories: permanent position; temporary post or maternity leave vacancy. Where the school doesn’t provide a reason for their vacancy, the default is that the vacancy is for a permanent position.

Regular readers, and those that study the labour market for teachers in any detail, will know that 2022 has been an exceptional year for vacancies, with record numbers being recorded so far this year and approaching 100,000 vacancies across the whole of the 2021-2022 school year.

The lack of any unique job identification number means that it is impossible to know the percentage of re-advertisements in the overall total of recorded vacancies. However, so great has been the increase, even over pre-covid vacancy levels that it must be inferred that there are more vacancies than normal.

To what extent has any growth in teachers taking maternity leave played a part in the increase in vacancies? There has been an increase, as the data in the table below reveals. Between January and June 2021 TeachVac recorded 4,386 vacancies where the cause of the vacancy was as a result of a teacher taking maternity leave. In the same period in 2022, the number had increased to 5,627 by 28^th June. Now, cognisant of my comment above, it is entirely possible that some of the growth in maternity leave vacancies is the result of re-advertisements, but it seems unlikely that re-advertisements account for the whole of the growth in such vacancies.

Maternity leave vacancies recorded by TeachVac

	Primary Sector	Secondary Sector	Total	Date range
Maternity	2564	3063	5627	Jan-June 2022
Maternity	2024	2362	4386	Jan-June 2021
Maternity	3539	4156	7695	All Year 2021

Source TeachVac

Now it is also possible that more schools are citing the fact that their vacancy is due to a teacher taking maternity leave. The alternative might be to advertise for a temporary post not citing the reason why the vacancy was temporary.

	January to June 2022
	Primary Sector	Secondary Sector	Total
Maternity	2564	3063	5627
Permanent	15925	48787	64712
Temporary	4371	2249	6620
Total	22860	54099	76959
Maternity	11%	6%	7%

	January to June 2021
	Primary Sector	Secondary Sector	Total
Maternity	2024	2362	4386
Permanent	10094	24128	34222
Temporary	3787	1838	5625
Total	15905	28328	44233
Maternity	13%	8%	10%

	2021 – All year
	Primary Sector	Secondary Sector	total
Maternity	3539	4156	7695
Permanent	14079	33370	47449
Temporary	5932	3207	9139
Total	23550	40733	64283
Maternity	15%	10%	12%

Source: TeachVac data

However, there has been a significant growth in the number of permanent vacancies recorded this year, up from 34,222 to 64,712 for the January to June period between those months in 2021 and those moths this year in 2022. Again, it isn’t possible to know the extent that re-advertisements are included in the increase. There will almost certainly be more re-advertisement than in a year when the supply of new teachers entering the market was greater than it has been this year, but I doubt re-advertisements are the main cause of the increase.

Keeping in touch with teachers taking maternity leave to encourage them to return, either part-time or to tutoring or in other type of work within the school would be a cost-effective means of not losing touch with a vital resource. The National Audit Office some years ago now commented that retention was much ore cost-effective than recruitment. Perhaps it is time the DfE dusted off a national ‘keep in tough’ scheme?

Academies dominate teacher recruitment market

Posted on June 24, 2022 by John Howson

TeachVac, the National Vacancy Service for Teachers, has estimated from an analysis of its data that 65% of teacher vacancies in 2022 have been placed by either MATs or stand-alone academies. Maintained schools, more common in the primary sector, where nationally advertised vacancies tend to be fewer in number, have accounted for only 35% of vacancies.

Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs) with more than 100 vacancies so far in 2022 accounted for 19% of the overall total of vacancies, and a higher proportion of the vacancies for secondary teachers.

One large MAT has posted more than 1,000 vacancies so far in 2022. There is an interesting question for the sector arising from this, as that MAT is one of those selected by the government to lead the new Institute of Teaching. Will there be a barrier between one side of the business and the other or will the MAT be in a more favourable position to recruit trainees than other MATs and maintained schools?

Recruitment has never been level playing field. Indeed, in 1995, I made just this point on page 213 of a book by Bines and Welton entitled ‘Managing partnership in teacher training and development’. Interestingly, I also pointed out in that chapter the need to integrate professional development into a programme that stretched beyond the then probationary year. Some things never change.

In order to meet the demands for teachers that have seen record levels of demand by schools this year, TeachVac, the on-line job board where I am Chair has just launched a new Premium Service that places subscribers’ vacancies at the top of the list of matches sent out each year.

TeachVac’s basic service remains free to schools, but the Premium Service that lists vacancies at the top of the daily match list sent to users costs £1 per match up to a maximum charge per school of £1,000 +VAT per annum for secondary schools and less for primary schools. As more schools sign up to the Premium Service the cap could be reduced to £500 per annum. With approaching 80,000 vacancies handled in 2022 to date and more than 1.8 million matches the premium service offers outstanding value for money and as more teachers sign up to the platform will over even better value. Schools can find out more at enquiries@oxteachserv.com or by messaging me directly.

Recruitment for unexpected January 2023 vacancies and for September 2023 will be challenging and as MATs and academies are currently putting their finishing touches to their 2022/23 budgets, now is an excellent time to adopt TeachVac’s No Match: No fee Premium Service with its cap on annual expenditure that can be built into the budget.

TeachVac doesn’t waste money on the hard sell. Sufficient schools have signed up to produce 1,100 matches through the Premium Service in June alone, after the May deadline for resignations. We believe that results are the best form of marketing.

Do you want to work in a selective school?

Posted on June 13, 2022 by John Howson

This bog post was first Posted on August 7, 2016 with the title ‘Do you want to work in a grammar school?’ and is now reposted in view of the revival of the debate about selective schools after a reader reminded me of its existence. Although the world has moved on in many respects – a National Funding Formula being one of them – the questions asked in 2016 remain pertinent today.

Grammar schools were a product of the nineteenth century that lingered overlong into the twentieth and have no place in the modern world. We should not ensure the effective education of those gifted and talented in some areas by separating them from the rest of society at an early age. Even where their education is fundamentally different, whether for future ballet dancers, musicians, footballers or choristers, some degree of integration with others less skilled in these areas should be the norm.

Since intellectual ability isn’t fully developed at eleven, the grounds for grammar schools seem more social than educational, even when cloaked in the guise of meritocracy. Scare resources are best employed developing better education for all, not in keeping a few Tory voters in the fold.

Before any decision is taken, and this wasn’t a manifesto pledge, the government should undertake some polling on the effect of the introduction of new selective schools across the country on both the current teacher workforce as well as the views of those that might want to become a teacher.

For existing secondary school teachers, the question is simple: If your school were to lose 30% of its most able pupils, would you continue to teach here?

For potential teachers the question is: would you be willing to teach in a school where 30% of the age range didn’t attend?

For primary school teachers, the question has to be whether they would prepare children for the selection process?

Making a teacher supply crisis worse won’t help the education of those not selected for a grammar school place.

To introduce grammar schools without a comprehensive education plan for every child the State has been entrusted with educating is unbelievably short-sighted: something only a narrow-minded government would contemplate. To cloak the introduction of grammar schools in the social mobility agenda without offering any evidence that such schools create more mobility than the alternative is to pander to the views of the few and to disregard the needs of the many.

What plans do the government have for those left out of a grammar school in a bulge year because grammar school places cannot be turned on an off? Will the government create a system to cope with 30% of the peak pupil numbers in the mid-2020s and allow either a less rigorous selection procedure until then or will it leave places empty? The alternative seems to me to be that it will set the limit on places now and see more parents denied places as pupil numbers increase?

What is certain is that the present per pupil funding formula cannot work within a two-tier system as the redundancies in Kent have already shown. Perhaps this is the real reason why the National Funding Formula consultation has been delayed, to allow for the incorporation of a different method of funding of grammar schools to non-selective schools within the new system?

Will Council taxpayers in areas that don’t want selective education be forced to pay the transport costs of pupils attending such schools and will the government reimburse them or expect them to take the cash away from other hard pressed services?

I am all in favour of local democracy in education, but not in a government sponsored free-for-all.

Buddy, can you spare a dime?

Posted on March 18, 2022 by John Howson

Did schools really save money in the five-year period up to 2019-2020? The DfE has published a study showing the aim of ‘saving’ at least one billion pounds during that period was achieved. Progress in schools savings and resource management – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

The methodology of the study was to measure savings as the difference between actual non-staff expenditure in 2019-20 and what was estimated non-staff expenditure would have been in 2019-20 if schools had not changed their spending behaviour. This is expressed as the difference between the expenditure line and the counterfactual line as to where expenditure without saving would have been.

It is worth noting that the period covered was one where primary school rolls were generally on the increase, and for many secondary school rolls were either constant or falling. Academies and maintained schools also operate on different financial years, so that could be an additional complicating factor.

A significant proportion of the saving came in the final year 2019-2020. I am not sure whether that meant that the final third of that financial year for academies covered the first four months of the pandemic when, for instance, there would have been a significant drop in expenditure on school meals, as most children were forced to stay at home.

The target of £1 Billion pounds was set after the National Audit Office (NAO) report “Financial sustainability of schools” published in 2016 identified that schools would incur cost pressures of £3bn between then and 2019- 20. The DfE then produced analysis which compared schools with different levels of spending but similar pupil characteristics and levels of attainment.

According to the report,

‘the DfE estimated the impact of bringing the spending of the top 25% highest per-pupil non-staff spending schools down to the level of those at the 75th percentile. This analysis indicated that, schools could plausibly save around £1 bn on their non-staff spending and so this became the ambition of the SRM portfolio’ (Page 3)

It is not clear from the report whether that is what happened, or whether the schools better at managing their costs took more out of the system, thus widening the gap between those schools good at achieving savings and the rest of the sector. Since both primary and secondary schools were included, it would have been interesting to know how much of the saving was due to fixed costs that don’t alter with changing pupil numbers – it presumably cost a similar amount to heat and light a school even if pupil numbers fluctuate. The saving would be more impressive and longer-lasting if it was the variable costs that had been reduced. Primary schools often have higher fixed costs as a proportion of income, although many of these are staff costs.

And, as the DfE note in the definitions on page 5 of the report.

‘“Saving” in this context does not mean a cash saving. We measure savings by comparing actual non-staff spend to where we expected non-staff spending to be had schools not changed spending behaviour – the counterfactual. We would calculate cash savings by taking away actual non-staff spend in 2019-20 from actual non-staff spending in 2015-16.’

And finally, it looks as if the special school sector was excluded if the study was only on primary and secondary schools. It would be interesting to know about cost pressures in that sector and whether similar saving was possible?

Teachers need CPD in using technology: nothing new there

Posted on March 16, 2022 by John Howson

The DfE has published an interesting survey about the use of Educational Technology in schools. These days, unlike when I first started teaching, EdTech usually means IT related equipment. The survey can be found at Education Technology (EdTech) Survey 2020-21 (publishing.service.gov.uk) It is worth noting that the Review is based upon a survey of a limited number of schools and teachers and that classroom teachers views may less visible than views from IT specialists and school leaders.

Many years ago, in the days of the Labour government, the early use of IT equipment in schools was chronicled in a number of surveys. I recall writing about some of the results, for instance, in the TES on 4^th January 2002 when government data suggested that the average secondary school already had more than 120 computers, and the average primary school more than 20.

In those days, the internet was still new and smart phones were only for enthusiasts. I also recall commissioning a Java app for the 2005 General Election based upon the cost of the War in Iraq: but that’s another whole story.

Schools these days take IT equipment for granted, but there are still differences between the primary and secondary school sectors. The Review rightly suggests that the need for ‘A review of the digital technology used for supporting pupils with SEND.’ (Page 22). All too often the need for accessible technology can be overlooked.

Schools clearly need more support, not least in the area of cyber security training and safeguarding pupils and staff. The decision to abolish rather than update the national support for Education Technology in the great bonfire of the QUANGOs instituted by the Conservative Ministers in the coalition government really does look like a short-sighted move, whatever the shortcomings were at the time. This lack of on-going support is recognised in the suggestions for future development contained in the Review.

Schools indicated a range of barriers to future effective use of EdTech including

Financial barriers were by far perceived as the biggest barriers, especially cost and budgetary constraints, although availability of technology in school (which is also likely to be linked to school budgets), was also cited.

Pupil barriers were perceived by teachers to be major barriers and the availability of technology (94%) and internet connectivity (90%) in pupils’ homes were perceived to be the biggest barriers to increased uptake of EdTech after cost and budget. Secondary school teachers (in particular those from local authority ‘maintained’ schools) perceived these factors to be ‘big barriers’. Pupils’ digital skills were also perceived as a barrier, although to a lesser degree.

Staff barriers, including teachers’ skills, confidence and appetite for using EdTech also represented a substantial barrier. Almost nine out of ten headteachers (88%) and three-fifths of teachers (58%) cited teacher skills and confidence as a barrier to the increased uptake of EdTech. Teachers who mentioned this was a barrier for them were less likely to say that EdTech met their needs, saved them time and reduced their workload. These teachers were also less confident in their ability to deliver remote education.

Connectivity barriers in school were also commonly mentioned, although they were more likely to be cited as ‘small’ barriers rather than ‘big’ barriers.

Safeguarding and data concerns were also mentioned, especially by secondary school teachers, however, overall, this represented a ‘small barrier’ to the increased uptake of technology. (Page 20)

Implicit in the comments about barriers may be the different funding regimes between academy chains and local authorities, whereby it is easier for academy chains to manage development and purchasing strategies than it is for local authorities under the present funding arrangements.

The use of devices reflects the difference between class-base teaching in the primary sector and subject-based teaching across most secondary schools. This difference in teaching strategy may explain why fixed units such as PCs have greater exposure in the secondary sector and tablets and other more mobile devices are to be found in great numbers in primary schools where pupils spend the majority of their time in a single teaching base.

The past two years of the pandemic has helped change the landscape for learning in schools and the future must make the best use of the skills only teachers can bring to support the learner and the best use that can be made of technology.

DfE publishes data on funding for schools

Posted on January 28, 2022 by John Howson

Hard on the heels of the Treasury Select Committee report, covered by this blog yesterday, the DfE has now issued its own data on funding of schools and their pupils. The data confirms the reflections of the Treasury Select Committee. School funding statistics: 2021 to 2022 financial year – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

location	time period	Per pupil funding 2021-22 terms in £	Per pupil funding cash terms in £
England	2010-11	6370	5180
England	2011-12	6390	5270
England	2012-13	6370	5360
England	2013-14	6350	5460
England	2014-15	6390	5560
England	2015-16	6400	5600
England	2016-17	6250	5590
England	2017-18	6140	5590
England	2018-19	6180	5730
England	2019-20	6230	5920
England	2020-21	6240	6280
England	2021-22	6510	6510
England	2022-23	6780	6970

State funding for schools in England

Source: DfE

To quote the DfE’s own words about Per-pupil funding between 2010-11 to 2022-23:

On a per-pupil basis the total funding to be allocated to schools for 5–16-year-olds, in cash terms, in 2022-23 is £6,970, a 35% increase compared to £5,180 allocated per pupil in 2010-11.

After adjusting for inflation, funding per pupil was broadly flat between 2010-11 and 2015-16 at just under £6,400 in 2021-22 prices.

It then fell by 4.0% over 2016-17 and 2017-18, but subsequently increased by 1.4% over 2018-19 and 2020-21. Since then, funding increased by 4.5% over the course of 2020-21 and 2021-22 and then by a further 4.2% in 2022-23, reaching £6,780 (in 2021-22 prices).

These numbers only cover the funding of 5-16-year-olds, so don’t account for the reduction in funding for sixth form pupils during the same period. Assuming that the numbers for the most recent periods were subject to inflation deflators not based upon the current high rate of inflation, then, should inflation remain at high levels, it seems likely that the real increase projected for the year 2022-23 of £410 in 2021-22 terms may turn out not to be as great an increase in real terms. Much of the increase may also be taken up in achieving the £30,000 minimum starting salary for teachers promised by the government.

Many secondary schools are enjoying economies of scale at present as their pupil numbers increase, whereas many primary schools outside areas with new housebuilding face the opposite, with diseconomies of scale, as pupil numbers fall. A class of 25 pupils needs the same teaching support as a class of 30 pupils, but will generate somewhat less than £30,000 in income for the school. Tough times ahead for the primary sector if the government doesn’t want to support them, especially for small rural schools that many need the protection nearly two decades ago should insufficient funding lead to potential closures.

The data used by the DfE on funding covers the following grants:

Dedicated Schools Grant (excluding early years and post-16 high-needs funding);

Grants outside the DSG to the City of London, Isles of Scilly and City Technology Colleges;

Pre-16 high-needs funding in non-maintained special schools,

Special and alternative provision free schools;

Pupil premium (all pupil ages);

Schools supplementary grant (reception to year 11);

Supplementary free school meals grant;

Teachers’ pay grant (reception to year 11);

Teachers’ pension employer contribution grant (TPECG) (reception to year 11).

The DfE points out that the funding in 2022-23 is based on a combination of published funding allocations, and the budget settlement agreed at the 2021 Spending Review, and some estimates of small-grant and high needs spending.

Schools have had a tough time over recent years and many have made great strides at achieving financial stability. The risk now is of high inflation and falling rolls continuing that period of challenge into the foreseeable future.

Pupil Teacher Ratios (PTRs): An update

Posted on June 22, 2021 by John Howson

The publication last week by the DfE of the school census discussed in the previous post on this blog means that a time series analysis of changes in PTRs can be undertaken using the DfE’s new ‘construct your own table’ tool.

PTRs are useful as a guide because they can provide evidence of changes in the trends of school funding, especially when most of that funding comes from pupil numbers. The measure is not perfect. Older teachers cost more than younger one, so schools where staff stay put after being employed at NQTs cost schools more each year until they reach the top of their scale. This extra cost isn’t recognised in the funding formula.

When schools are gaining pupils, you might expect PTRs to improve, and when rolls start falling then PTRs might worsen, although there is likely to be a time lag to that effect as schools come to terms with lower numbers of pupils going forward. After all, no school likes to make staff redundant.

Incidentally, the fall in the birth rate and the exodus of overseas citizens will mean some tough decisions on ITT numbers may need to be made, possibly as early as this autumn for 2022 entry.

An analysis of changes in PTRs between 2016/17 and 2020/21 for the secondary sector shows only seven authorities, including the Isles of Scilly, where PTRs improved. In 13 local authorities the secondary PTR for schools across the Authority worsened by at least two pupils per teacher, with Slough unitary authority and the City of Nottingham having the largest changes in PTRS for the worse in the secondary sector. Most local authorities witnessed overall secondary PTRS deteriorate by between one and two teachers per pupil during this five year period. Historically that is quite a significant level of change for so many authorities. Now, some of that deterioration might have been due to keeping option groups going in the sixth form as pupil numbers in that age-group continued to fall but some could well be down to funding pressures across the sector.

In the primary sector, the position is more complex. Schools tend to be smaller and areas with new housing may be gaining pupils, even as other areas are being affected by the fall in the birth rate. Changes in PTRS have generally been in the range of plus one to minus one across most authorities, although during the five year period there are some outliers, notably, the City of Derby, where it is possible that the 2016/17 data point in the DfE database is a mistake. Such mistakes do happen from time to time.

It may also be a coincidence that both North Yorkshire and York unitary authority have recorded significant improvements during the five year period. A number of London boroughs south of the Thames also appear to have done relatively well during this five year period.

The longer that the National Funding Formula is in existence, it will be interesting to see what, if any effect it has on PTRs across the different authorities. Of course, if boundaries continue to be redrawn it will be impossible to tell. Happily, Outer London boroughs have had the same boundaries for more than half a century now.

Bounce back

Posted on May 16, 2021 by John Howson

Data from TeachVac www.teachvac.co.uk suggests that vacancies for teachers in schools in England are up by 47% between 1^st April and 14^th May this year when compared with the same period in 2020. Of course, that was the period at the height of the first lockdown. The increase for primary sector vacancies is even more dramatic: up by 95% from 2,770 in April and early May last year to 5,413 this year.

In the secondary sector, demand is up, but in subjects such as art, but only around two per cent. In the key curriculum subjects of the English Baccalaureate the increase is in the range of 20-30%, although IT vacancies are up by 34%, and those for languages by 38%. Interestingly, the increase for mathematics is only 17%. This may be down to the need for fewer re-advertisements than in past years as existing teacher stay put and more of those training to be teachers actually opt to enter the classroom.

However, it is not all good news. TeachVac has ‘red’ warning out for business studies and design and technology. This means schools anywhere in England, but especially in the South East and London areas, could experience challenges if trying to recruit teachers in these subjects. The same challenge will apply for physics but, as most science posts are advertised as general science vacancies, it is not possible to quantify exactly the extent of the problem. Teachers may apply for either specific physics posts or those for a ‘science’ teacher.

Although demand in the London area is weaker than in recent years it is still higher than in many parts of England. At present, the South East Region is the region with the greatest demand for teachers. Yorkshire and The Humber Region is the area north of London where vacancy rates are at their highest in the secondary sector.

Part of the reason for the level of demand in the South East is the high number if private schools. Demand for teachers from those schools appears to be holding up well.

On the basis of the evidence from the 34,000 vacancies for teachers identified so far in 2021, the demand for teachers is once again going to become an issue in parts of England by 2023. It will be important to track the level of interest in teaching as a career over the next few months and compare it with the same period last year. If a decline in those likely to be career changers is not matched by increased interest from new graduates, then that will be an early warning sign for policymakers.

The other ‘unknown’ is workings of the international school market for teachers, and its impact on the market in England. Will there be a flood or returning teachers from say China, Hong Kong and the Middle East or will demand hold up and fresh demand take more teachers out of the home market? Only time will tell.

Taxing our schools

Posted on November 4, 2020 by John Howson

What started out as a ‘good idea’ has now become a tax on schools, and especially primary schools: at least in Oxfordshire. The apprenticeship Levy doesn’t seem to work as intended, as the following information provided by the Council to a Lib Dem question clearly shows.

The Apprenticeship Levy started in May 2017.

The levy is funded via a monthly charge against our payroll bill of 0.5%. This equates to approximately £100k a month. The money charged to our payroll is put into an OCC digital apprenticeship account and is drawn down by apprenticeship training providers on a monthly basis. For example, if 1 apprenticeship costs £4,800 and has a duration of 2 years, the provider will draw down £200 a month for 24 months.

Each month’s levy is treated as a separate pot of money with the oldest pot of funding being used first. The first allocation of £100k (May 2017) was used to pay providers until it was exhausted. For example, if our total training bill was £10k a month, it would take 10 months to use the first month’s levy. In the meantime, we would have accrued a further £900k over the following months which would not have been spent as there was sufficient in the first month’s pot to cover the costs. Once the first month’s levy was spent, future expenditure was taken from month 2 until this was exhausted and so on.

Since May 2017, Oxfordshire has accrued a total of £4,047,490 to spend on apprenticeships.

However, Oxfordshire can only keep the accrued levy for 24 months. So, we had until May 2019 to spend May 2017 allocation, June 2019 to spend June 2017 allocation etc.

Any money remaining in a pot that is more than 2 years’ old is returned to the treasury (i.e.The Government at Westminster – my addition). This means that any funding added to our levy pot before October 2018 and not spent was returned.

Our first repayment was September 2019. To date £611,788 has expired and has been repaid to The Treasury. This equates to approximately 37% of the levy we accrued between May 2017 and October 2018.

Levy accrued between November 2018 and October 2020 has not yet reached an expiry date so we have approx. £2,326,543 available to spend.

Spend on apprenticeships is increasing every year which indicates that the level of levy we will need to repay should reduce over the coming months and years.

Levy Spend per calendar year was:

	2017	£18,225.54
	2018	£144,403.85
	2019	£435,201.48
Jan – Sept	2020	£511,227.38

It is anticipated that 2020 final spend will be approx. £700k as we have recently started a number of degree level apprenticeships that will draw down large monthly amounts.

For information, school contribution and spend for 2019 is:

Contribution to the levy: £405,596
Spend: £232,858

The county team continues to promote apprenticeships (both employed and CPD) where ever possible throughout the organisation whilst recognising further work needs to be done.

If this lack of spending the cash raised by the levy from schools, and MATs have the same problem, is common across the country then it is time to seek reform.

We need more apprenticeships, so making use of the cash to train teachers would be one possible change. Creating two non-teaching posts with substantial training elements might be another low cost approach that might also help reduce unemployment if linked to other programmes.

Whatever approach is taken, schools should not see any of their hard fought for cash being returned unspent to government. Just as they should not now be wasting cash on expensive recruitment advertising.

To ask for more funds must run alongside making the best use of the cash already in the system.

Action for local government: Apprenticeship funding needs radical change. If the Government increased Levy flexibilities, including allowing public pooling of funds, Treasury pausing its expiry policy, and devolving non-levy funding, local government could support local businesses in a much more targeted and coherent way, including by allowing them to target sectors, address local supply / demand side issues, widen participation to disadvantaged groups and specific cohorts. A proportion could be spent on pre-apprenticeship training / administration of programmes. This could support the development of the Opportunity Guarantee. Alongside these measures, we call for a levy payment holiday (up to 6 months) for businesses struggling with cashflow problems and allow employers to collaborate on transferring / pooling. DfE should also pause the switch-off of frameworks until March 2021.

Enough potential school leaders?

Posted on September 3, 2020 by John Howson

When I wrote a blog recently about the significant level of head teacher vacancies recorded by both TeachVac and the DfE vacancy site during August, I promised to look into the possible size of the pool of school leaders able to step up to fill headships in the primary sector. (Feeling the Strain 31^st August 2020)

The new arrangement for viewing the DfE Statistics of the School Workforce in November 2019 made this more of a challenge than in the past. Indeed, I have still not fathomed whether it is possible to add in age groupings as a variable in the composite table searchers are allowed to create from the data? This is an important variable in answering the question about leadership pool of talent since deputy and assistant heads in some age groups may be expected to be lacking in experience in post sufficient to consider promotion to a headship.

Even better would be details about age and length of service in post, something provided way back in the 1990s, but not seemingly available now without a specific data request. Perhaps the teacher associations might like to consider this issue in their next evidence to the Pay Review Body the STRB).

Historically, most head teachers are appointed from the ranks of deputy head teachers, although, as some small primary schools don’t have a deputy, a number of assistant heads or even teachers with a TRL have been appointed to headships in the past. More recently, deputy heads in secondary schools have been moved across to primary schools in the same Academy Trust in order to fill vacancies for primary head teacher posts.

Looking at the data for the last four years from the School Workforce Census, the number of full-time deputy heads in the primary sector has declined from 11,563 in 2017/18, to 10,729 in 2019/20. The number of part-time deputy heads during the same period has, however, increased from 1,062 to 1,236. Nevertheless, the size of the pool has not grown. This is despite the number of schools remaining almost constant during the same period, the total altering only from 17,191 to 17,178.

Assuming some 2,000 primary head teacher vacancies each year, with 25% being taken by existing head teacher changing schools, this would create a demand for 1,500 first time head teachers each year. Assuming ten per cent of the 12,000 deputy heads are too new in post to consider promotion and a further 10% are too old to be still interested in headship, the remaining 10,000 or so leaves a generous margin of possible applicants.

However, other considerations then come into play; type of school – infant, junior or primary; organisation – maintained or academy; religious affiliation or none – Church of England, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Jewish, Greek Orthodox; Sikh, Muslim; size of school – one form entry to four form entry or larger?

All these variables can affect the size of the possible pool of interested applicants. A further wrinkle is the time of year a vacancy is advertised. Historically, 50% of vacancies appear in the January to March period and are the easiest to fill as that is when the majority of applicants are job hunting. TeachVac www.teachvac.co.uk has detailed information on how schools advertising for a head teacher fare, and how many have to re-advertise. Each year, a report is published in January.

We shall be watching the current trends with interest.

John Howson

Education and the numbers that affect what happens

Tag Archives: primary schools