Free School Meals and headteacher vacancies

This is the third in my series of posts based upon my thoughts on headteacher vacancies that have been posted by state schools in England so far this school year. This post is a bit more speculative than the previous two posts, as it looks at the relationship between re-advertisements of headteacher vacancies and the percentage of children on Free School Meals as recorded on the DfE’s website in the schools that have re-advertised their headship.

I have used data for all the vacancies where free school meals data are available as the baseline. New schools; nursery schools; sixth form colleges and some other schools are excluded as they don’t have free school meals pupils. Thes other schools may be small schools, or just schools that have not recorded the percentage at this point in time.

% RANGE of FSM pupilsALL ADVERTSRE-ADSPERCENTAGE
0-9.91742414%
10-19.92672710%
20-29.91933016%
30-39.91632717%
40-49.91091514%
50-59.973811%
60-69.938411%
70+16638%

I have divided the vacancies into groups in an arbitrary manner. At this stage of the year, many schools that have advertised during February and March will not yet have had time to complete the appointment process, and decide whether or not to make an appointment or to re-advertise. As a result, the data presented in the table are in no way definitive of the current recruitment round. It will not be until January 2027, when the autumn term of 2026 re-advertisements have been added that a definitive report can be produced.

However, it is interesting to see that six of the 16 schools with the highest percentages of children with Free School Meals entitlement have already re-advertised the vacancy for their headship.

What I have yet to do is to look at the national total number of schools in each band, to see whether certain bands have a higher turnover overall. However, there are so many different possible intervening variables that such an exercise will need to wait until the end of the school-year, and possibly the autumn to be worth considering.

Nevertheless, as previous posts have made clear, there are some school types that are likely to have a higher rate of re-advertisement than others, and it will be interesting to see by the end of the recruitment round whether or not there is any correlation within groupings such as, for instance, Roman Catholic Schools in the North West of England or small primary schools in coastal areas and the free school meal percentage of schools that re-advertise their headship.

Is this data of any use to policymakers, and if so, what should be the outcome. In the past, during the coalition government there were suggestions for intervention in helping challenging schools recruit new leaders. Nowadays, I assume that is left to multi-academy trusts and diocese, and those local authorities that still take an interest in schooling to intervene. The other interesting question is, do schools with high levels of free school meals pupils retain headteacher for shorter periods of time than other schools?

Is there a leadership crisis in England’s state schools?

First, a health warning: the percentages of schools re-advertising a head teacher vacancy reported in this post will probably not be the final figure by the end of the current school year. This is because the 289 first advertisements recorded during March 2026 have yet to contribute any re-advertisements to the total.

The data for this post are collected from both the DfE vacancy site and other key job boards twice a week, and entered by myself into the database. A re-advertisement is recorded for any headteacher vacancy re-appearing with a new closing date more than 14 days after the original closing date. This allows two weeks leeway for short-term extensions of the closing date to be ignored.

I reported on the initial outcomes for the first 1,000 vacancies in a post on the 8th March What the first 1,000 headteacher adverts tell us | John Howson so this is by way of an Easter catch-up.

The database now has details of 1,261 advertisements for headteacher vacancies, posted by 1,110 schools.

The current re-advertisement rate for special schools stands at 27%. This is down two points from the 27% recorded in the 8th March post. However, it is still significantly higher than any other re-advertisement rate for a sub-set of schools: the current overall re-advertisement rate for all schools is 12% of all advertisement or 14% of first advertisements. This latter percentage reflects the fact that a small number of schools have now re-advertised their vacancy more than once. In March the percentage of all adverts that were re-adverts was 11%, so on that basis, at 12%, the overall position has worsened slightly.

As reported in the 8th March post, faith schools are more likely to appear in the list of schools that didn’t fill their headteacher vacancy at their first attempt. Based on a percentage of all adverts for the faith group, Roman Catholic schools’ re-advertisement rate currently stands at 19%, compared with 16% in the 8th march post. If re-advertisements as a percentage of schools advertising is considered, rather than the percentage of all advertisement, the re-advertisement rate for Roman Catholic schools, including the three schools that have re-advertised twice, rises to 23%. For Church of England schools, the percentages are 13% and 15%., just one percentage point above the average for all schools.

So, is there a crisis in headteacher recruitment? As my post of yesterday (3rd April) revealed, headteacher turnover is nowhere near the levels I recorded twenty years ago, so the volume of vacancies cannot be a reason for the current level of re-advertisements.

The mix of schools has no doubt contributed to the current level of re-advertisement by schools failing to make an appointment for their new headteacher or, in a few cases, co-headteacher on a job share.

I am wary of declaring a crisis at this stage of the year. Those that have read my book* of the 2013 blog posts know that when I called the teacher supply crisis in the early summer of that year, the DfE accused me of scaremongering. I would hate to be accused of such behaviour once more, so let me end by saying that the fate of pupils with SEND in special schools will not be helped if such schools cannot recruit headteachers.

I propose to write an interim report on the outcome for the year during August and the final version, allowing for re-advertisements during the autumn term will hopefully appear in January 2027.

*Teachers, schools and views on Education – available through amazon or on request directly from myself/

Headteacher vacancies – a changing trend in advertising date?

One of the advantages of studying the same field for more than 40 years is the opportunity to investigate interesting hypotheses.

But first, a bit of background. When I started collecting vacancies for headteacher posts in state schools in England, way back in the 1980s, an advert in the TES was virtually the only source for jobseekers, so data collection was easy. The exception was the 12 months in the 1980s when News International titles, including the TES, were affected by a strike that prevented publication.

From around 2000 onwards, the TES had both print and on-line vacancies to check for headteacher vacancies. These days the main source of data are the DfE vacancy site, at least for headteacher vacancies. Even so, some schools still advertise in the TES, and a few on regional job boards, especially in the North East region.

My first hunch, not really a hypothesis in the 1980s when I started the work of collecting headteacher vacancies was that faith schools had more difficulty recruiting a new headteacher than other schools, based upon the number of such schools re-advertising. An early analysis supported the hunch, and the challenge facing faith schools is still with us in an increasingly secular society.

My next hypothesis was that most vacancies for headteachers came as a result of retirements. For a number of years, the annual study of senior staff vacancies I conducted for the NAHT validated this hypothesis, at least for headteacher vacancies.

In the days when all schools in the state sector were linked with a local authority, headteachers retiring at the end of the school-year might inform their governing bodies of their decision to retire at the last meeting in the autumn term. The result, a rash of advertisements for headteachers in January, and the bulk of vacancies for headteacher posts were either advertised or re-advertised between January 1st and 30th April.  

As a result of the increasing number of schools that are now academies, I have created a new hypothesis. I wonder whether the absence of any real local governing body for each academy might have resulted in headteachers postponing announcement of their retirement to the Trust until a later date in the term starting in January and, as a result, advertisements for headteacher vacancies are now being skewed to the second half of the first quarter of the year, with fewer January advertisements?

Now we are in April, it is possible to consider the data, and compare the data for 2026 with 2006 and 2018 – sadly TeachVac didn’t collect headteacher vacancies in 2016, but at that time just concentrated on classroom teacher vacancies.  

The first thing to note is that there appear to be fewer headteacher vacancies advertised in 2026 compared with either 2006 or 2018.

YearJANUARYFEBRUARYMARCHTOTAL
2006TOTAL5093944421345
2018TOTAL3583803391077
2026FIRST175203289667
2026READVERT132285120
2026Total188225374787

Source Headbase 2006; TeachVac 2018; John Howson 2026

In 2006, the demography of the teaching profession was very different to that of today. Many more headteachers were approaching retirement in 2006, and often decided to retire before reaching the then official retirement age. Nowadays, there is no official retirement age, pension rules have changed significantly, and I suspect the actual number of headteacher retiring each year has decreased.

However, the more interesting piece of data relates to the percentage of vacancies recorded each month. In 2006 and 2018, data collection did not distinguish between first advertisement and re-advertisements during the three months, but counted all but ‘repeat’ vacancies published.

The 2026 data collection exercise I conduct is based upon a collection date, accurate to within three days of a vacancy being published, and a re-advertisement data based upon a new closing date more than four weeks after the original closing date for the vacancy for a headteacher. Re-advertisements with an April closing date have been assigned to March for the purpose of this exercise on the basis of three to four weeks between vacancy being published and closing dates.

YearJANUARYFEBRUARYMARCHtotal
2006TOTAL38%29%33%100%
2018TOTAL33%35%31%100%
2026FIRST26%30%43%100%
2026READVERT11%18%71%
2026Total24%29%48%100%

Source Headbase 2006; TeachVac 2018; John Howson 2026

The data does seem to offer some support for my hypothesis, as January only accounted for 26% of vacancies in 2026 (24% if re-advertisements are included) compared with 38% in 2006, and 33% in 2018, when academies were already a feature of the school landscape.

March 2026 accounted for 48% of headteacher vacancies, compared with 33% in 2026, and 31% in 2018. In a future post, I will delve into the issue of re-advertisements that accounted for five per cent of the vacancies in March 2026.

At some point, I will compare academies and non-academy state schools to see whether their advertising patterns for headteacher vacancies in the first three months of the year vary, and will report my findings in a future post.

Headteacher: recruitment bonus – good value or not?

Following suggestions that the DfE might pay a £15,000 recruitment bonus/golden hello to encourage people to take the role of headteacher in a challenging school, I though I would look at the most recent data regarding schools failing to appoint a new headteacher at their first attempt.

The data covers 789 schools that have advertised for a headteacher between 1st August 2025 and the 20th February 2026 on their the DfE vacancy platform or since 1st January 2026, the tes jobsite as well.

Of course, some schools still have active vacancies that have yet to reach their closing date, so the data are probably an underestimate.  The 789 is lower than might be expected number of vacancies from looking at historical data. Is it possible that some MATs no longer advertise headteacher vacancies nationally?

Anyway, there have been 80 schools that have so far readvertised their headteacher vacancy. Of these schools,

50 were primary schools

14 were secondary schools

16 were special schools

13 were Roman Catholic Schools

17 Church of England

  2 other faiths

48 Not faith school

Regionally, the picture is as shown in the table.

REGIONREADVERTADVERT% READ
SE5896%
SW6917%
WM81018%
YH101089%
NW1210711%
EM108112%
L129213%
EE139713%
NE42218%
ENGLAND8078910%

The North East data shows how percentages can be misleading as two of the four schools are special schools. Without those two schools, the percentage drops to a below average 9%.

A bonus of £15,000 might look attractive to someone thinking of a headteacher post in a primary school, but with many secondary headteacher vacancies being advertised with a starting salary in six figures, would £15,000 be enough to attract candidates to apply for the vacancy? How does it compare with subject bonuses for working in such schools?

A review of the 14 secondary schools for percentage pass at Grade 5 in English and mathematics from the DfE website, shows a range of outcomes

22.8
27.0
32.9
33.5
38.5
39.5
40.2
43.7
49.8
51.3
51.5
62.3
64.6
83.5

However, it would suggest that re-advertising secondary schools do appear to have below average outcomes.  However, four of the schools posted their vacancy just before Christmas, and that might be more of reason for the re-advertisement than their GCSE score, that is unless the school has to re-advertise for a second time after an early 2026 re-advert.

Special schools do seem to have difficulty attracting a head teacher, so a bonus there could potentially be useful as an inducement, especially as taking such a headship often involves a house move.

Overall, if the scheme just covered secondary and special schools, it might cost the DfE around £1 million a year. Add in primary schools, and the cost could be much higher.

However, it does seem clear that a school’s results may not be the only barrier to a school recruiting a headteacher easily.

There needs to be certainty that there are sufficient candidates willing, able and experienced enough to move into headship. There the DfE certainly has a role to play.

White Paper: bad news for rural primary schools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Headteacher vacancies: even in August

More than 40 years ago, I first started counting heads. That’s actually headteacher vacancies, not actual heads. With some spare time on my hands, I thought that I would go back to my roots and look at what is the current state of play this August?

Of course, August is a quiet month, and there are currently fewer than 60 headteacher vacancies listed on the DfE website that is the main go-to place these days, just as the TES was in the 1980s.   

The DfE vacancy website still contains some of the flaws created when it was established. Anyone trying to use modern methods of’ scraping’ jobs will come across the random duplication outcome that has been a feature of the site ever since its inception. I am not sure whether it was deliberate or a fault in the coding, but it always used to annoy me when I was running TeachVac to see the same job repeated in the listing more than once.

The alternative, pioneered by TeachVac was to ‘scrape’ school websites where schools placed their jobs. However, for obvious reasons, not all schools placed headship vacancies on their website. Presumably not to let staff and parents know of the impending departure of their headteacher.

At least with headteacher posts, there is no problem deciding whether the vacancy is a repeat listing or a re-advertisement. Headteacher posts are unique, and thus easy to track.

Anyway, what did I learn from collecting the first 50 vacancies? Special schools were over-represented, with eight such schools looking for a headteacher this August. As a part of the White Paper on SEND, I hope that the government will consider the staffing and training of staff for the special school sector that has long been a Cinderella, and if not bullied by the bigger primary and secondary sectors, it is certainly still in search of a fairy godmother.

There are only two secondary schools in the list, and one is a 10-14 school, and the other a private school. That doesn’t surprise me, as secondary schools usually sort out headship vacancies well before the start of the school year. If there is an unexpected vacancy, then there is often a deputy head that can ‘act up’ until an appropriate time to advertise the vacancy.

Of the 50 or so primary schools, including one First School, 17 were faith schools: ten Roman Catholic; six Church of England and one other Christian faith. These numbers don’t surprise me in the least; indeed, I would have been surprised if there were fewer Roman Catholic schools in the list. All the years I monitored headteacher vacancies, Roman Catholic schools often featured prominently in any listings. 

The relative absence of schools from London and much of the South East is interesting, but I need more data to say anything else than that.

Almost all schools provide a starting salary, either as a point on the scale or as a cash sum. One academy adds 5% to the quoted salary. The indication of a starting salary is an improvement over the time when schools rarely quoted a starting salary for those interested in becoming their headteacher.

Whether I keep us this task will no doubt depend upon how much else I have to do, but it was interesting retracing my footsteps.

.

A text for Holy Week

Matthew Chapter 25 verses 31-46

This blog doesn’t make a habit of straying into the realm of theology, but a recent comment about the availability of school places for children taken into care together with the post on this blog about the recent research report published by the DfE on vulnerable children and admissions did set me thinking about school admissions policies.

There is a post from a couple of years ago on this blog entitled Jacob’s Law that discussed some aspects of the issue, but not the question as to how faith schools can behave. The wider issues on admissions are discussed in What is the role of a school in its community? | John Howson (wordpress.com).

I have now discovered that some faith schools do not put all children in care in the top priority group for admission. Instead, they prioritise practicing members of their faith community. Some faith schools go some way to helping admit children in care, but only if the child in question or their carers can be considered ‘of the faith’ using a similar test to other children.

As these are state schools, using taxpayers’ money, I wonder whether it is appropriate for some children in care not to be provided with a top priority position in the admissions criteria? After all, many of these children will have been moved from their family home to live with relatives or foster families and forced to seek a new school through no actions of their own.

However, perhaps the greater argument in asking the Christian churches and other faith schools to reflect upon their admissions policy, and especially the Roman Catholic Church, where the downgrading of children in care seems to be most prevalent in admission criteria, to consider placing all children in care at the top of the list of criteria for admission is the sentiments expressed in Matthew Chapter 25 verses 31-46.

Now I know that the passage does not explicitly mention schooling or education. Indeed, learning, per se doesn’t feature a great deal in the gospels, as opposed to children that do receive mentions, presumably as like health services, they weren’t of much concern about schooling in Roman controlled provinces at that time. However, the sentiment of public service expressed in Matthew’s Gospel must surely be thought to include schooling. After all, it is in line with a gospel of love for one another?

More than a century ago, around the time the 1902 Education Act was being discussed, the Wesleyan Church debated whether their teachers were teachers of Methodists or teachers of children, and decided their purpose was to teach children, not just to teach Methodist children. Hence, there are no state-funded Methodist secondary schools, although there remain a few primary schools around the country under the auspices of the Methodist Church.

I would hope, at least in terms of children taken into care, whose vulnerability and need for support is obvious, that the leaders of faiths whose schools don’t put such children at the top of their admissions policy would reconsider that decision this Easter. Please put children in care as top priority for admissions in every state-funded school in England.

The State cannot just abandon children

Less than three weeks ago I wrote a post about ‘closing schools’.  I concluded by saying that:

‘We are better equipped to deal with unforeseen events these days, whether fire, floods or pestilence; but only if we plan for them.’

Last night, I was talking live on a local radio station when the news about school closures was being announced. I was immediately struck by the very lack of planning I had suggested was needed. Obviously, no announcement was made about the consequences for the examination system and the knock-on effects about entry to higher education this autumn. True, that doesn’t need to be solved immediately, but it is a major worry for a group of young people and their parents.

Of more concern, not least in rural areas and other locations with small schools, was the statement about children falling into two groups: those of key workers and those regarded as ‘vulnerable’.

With budgets devolved to schools, decisions the education of children in these groups may have to be made at the level of the school site. Firstly, there needs to be agreement of those actually falling into each category. Secondly, for small schools, what happens if all the staff are either off sick or self-isolating: who takes responsibility? Clearly, MATs can handle decisions across their family of schools, if the finding agreement allows. But what of other schools?

My initial reaction, live on local radio, was to call for a strategic group in the local area formed from the Anglican and Roman Catholic diocese and arch-diocese, the largest Multi-Academy Trusts in the area and the local authority.

The local authority can coordinate transport and special needs and work with the other groups on ensuring a skeleton of schools are able to open, even if staff are asked to move schools. There is no point in every small rural primary school staying open for just one or two children, unless it can also in those circumstances take other children as well.

This is where the lack of planning ahead in a society dedicated to individual freedom and choice has created a set of questions we are ill-equipped as a society to answer. Is it right for government just to dump the problem on its citizens, or should it take a more interventionist approach: especially to ‘so called public services’? It is interesting that in transport the approach to services in London by the Mayor seems much more coordinated.

Perhaps this crisis will finally bring home to policy-makers the need for a coherent middle tier in education, able to do more than arrange school transport and adjudicate on school offers.

Faced with the prospect of schools being closed until September, and the possible default of some schools in the private sector as they lose their summer term fee income, there needs to be some coherent planning, both for the closure and an orderly return to a fully functioning sector. You only have to search back through this blog to know how I feel we might move forward.

A question for the Cardinals

Why do Roman Catholic schools find more difficulty in recruiting a new headteacher than do other schools? I first posed this question more than thirty years ago, soon after I started looking at trends in vacancies for school leaders in the early 1980s.

After a break of five years, I returned to the subject of vacancies for school leaders in a report published last January. I have just completed the first draft of the 2018 survey into leadership vacancies. The full report will be available from TeachVac at enquiries@oxteachserv.com early in the New Year. You can reserve a copy now.

Once again, in 2018, Roman Catholic schools, and especially those in some diocese, weren’t able to appoint a headteacher after the first advertisement by the school. The data comes from TeachVac, the free job board that costs schools and teachers nothing to use.

(As an aside, I wonder why the DfE didn’t contract with an existing provider such as TeachVac, eteach or even the US owned TES to provide a comprehensive free job site rather than building their own site. Perhaps there are different rules for Brexit and hiring ships from companies still to start their service than for designing government web sites for far more money than it would have cost to buy in the service.)

Anyway, back to the matter in hand, TeachVac recorded that some 57 of the 124 Roman Catholic schools that were recorded as advertising for a primary headteacher during the 2017-18 school year needed to re-advertise the post: a re-advertisement rate of 46%. Other schools had re-advertisement rates for vacancies first advertised during this period in the low 30%s.

Now, some diocese, have reduced re-advertisement rates by appointing deputy heads from secondary schools to run primary schools. I was once sceptical of this as a solution, but can now see that just as a secondary school headteacher isn’t an expert in all subjects taught in the schools, so a primary headteacher needs leadership qualities, backed by experienced middle leaders that understand the different stages of learning and development in the primary sector.

Using a different measure of total re-advertisements to schools advertising a vacancy for a headteacher reveals that a small number of schools have extreme difficulty in recruiting a new headteacher. Some of these schools just start at the wrong time of year.

Overall, almost every primary school of any type that advertised a headship in December 2017 re-advertised the post at some point during 2018. Unless, these schools used a subscription model that allowed for as many advertisements are required to fill the post, the governors were just wasting the school’s money if they used a paid for publication or job board for the December advert. Those that used TeachVac would have not faced that problem, because it wouldn’t have cost them anything.

As Britain becomes a more secular society, all faiths will need to address the question of how to find the next generation of leaders for their schools. With the approach the 150th anniversary of the 1870 Education Act, such schools seem likely to remain a part of the landscape, whatever the feelings and views of those that would prefer an entirely secular state school system.

 

 

Another slice of fudge?

Congratulations to the civil servant that worked out it was possible to circumvent the cap on faith-based admissions placed upon new free schools by reviving the concept of voluntary schools, where there has never been any such cap on admissions. The proposals are contained in the government’s response to the 2016 Schools that Work for Everyone Consultation. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/706243/Schools_that_work_for_everyone-Government_consultation_response.pdf

The determining paragraph is on page 14:

To enable the creation of these places, we will be establishing a capital scheme to support the creation of new voluntary aided schools for faith and other providers. Schools created through this scheme will have the same freedoms as existing voluntary aided schools, including over their admissions which will enable them to select up to 100% of pupils on the basis of faith. There has never been a general route for any faith group to receive 100% state funding for a school with 100% faith-based admissions. In line with this, and our longstanding approach to funding of voluntary aided schools, the Department for Education expects those groups establishing voluntary aided schools to contribute 10% of the capital costs relating to their schools. Local authorities will play a key role in supporting and approving any new voluntary aided school, to ensure it fits well with our integration and community cohesion objectives. They will be well placed to consider how new proposals will meet demand from, and potential impact on, the local community. The Department for Education will develop the details of this scheme over the coming months and will set out the arrangements by which proposer groups can apply for capital funding later this year.

It is interesting that new voluntary aided schools don’t seem to be restricted to faith providers. However, anyone contemplating such schools is going to have to raise 10% of the capital costs, so best to start with a small school and then expand it later if successful. These schools will, presumably, have to be built under the ‘presumption’ route, as otherwise they would need to be free schools and hence capped as to faith limits.

This may well provoke some interesting discussions where a small local authority such as a London borough or a unitary council needs a single new primary school. How is the evidence of demand going to be assessed? It may well be challenging to believe the data from parish priests and diocese. I well recall the demand for a Catholic secondary school when Oxfordshire replaced its three tier system with primary and secondary schools and the Catholic diocese wanted to break up the existing Ecumenical Upper School and establish a wholly Catholic secondary school. They sent a procession of parish priests along to explain the demand for such a school. They got their way, but the school now has less than 40% of its pupils as Catholics.

There is a strong case for granting voluntary aided status for a set period of time. If the school roll falls below the 50% of pupil numbers of the free school threshold for the faith at the end of a set time period then, unless it can regain that threshold within a set period, the school should revert to being a community school.

The challenge, of course remains that discussed by the Wesleyan Methodists before the 1902 Education Act was passed. Are teachers that are Methodists called to be teachers of children or of Methodists? Faith groups demanding voluntary aided schools need to have an answer to that question.