SEND funding switched to schools?

Has the funding of SEND just become even more complicated for 2026-27? Under the arrangements announced by the DfE, cash has moved from the High Needs Block to other funding streams within the Dedicated Schools Grant.  Dedicated schools grant (DSG): 2026 to 2027 – GOV.UK

Now I am no expert in schools funding, and the labyrinthine calculations employed by the DfE in deciding both the size of the cake and its distribution.  However, it does seem as if all local authorities will see their High Needs Block funding stream reduced in 2026-27 when compared with 2025-26. As seem usual, some London boroughs have been less affected by the change than other upper tier authorities, with 10 of the 20 local authorities with the smallest percentage decrease being London boroughs. There are no London boroughs within the top 20 authorities with the largest percentage reductions, with the highest ranked London borough coming in at 23rd place.

Oxfordshire, where I served as the Cabinet member until May’s elections, has seen a decline of 18.75% in its High Needs block. That decline ranks it in the top 25 local authorities for the largest reductions in their High Needs Block. Hopefully, the cash has been distributed to schools, but the Schools Block for the County has also reduced, by around £5 million – effectively a standstill. No doubt the reduction is due to falling pupil numbers on a formula that is heavily driven by pupil numbers. The implications for schools faced with falling rolls was discussed in my blog post How might a school react to falling rolls? | John Howson

What does the DfE say about the High Needs block changes?

16. As the existing SEND system will continue for 2026 to 2027, the Department’s assessment is that limiting the funding in this way will not necessarily translate into negative impacts on children and young people with SEND and will not mean that we see negative equalities impacts. This is because the requirements on local authorities to secure provision to meet the needs of children and young people with SEND will remain in place, and local authorities must meet these requirements. The consequent budget pressures will therefore lead to accruing DSG deficits rather than having a negative impact on SEND provision.

And 17. We recognise that the size of deficits that some local authorities may accrue while the statutory override is in place may not be manageable with local resources alone, and will bring forward arrangements to assist with them as part of broader SEND reform plans, as explained in the Government’s provisional local government finance settlement document. Given that local authorities will continue to be protected from the adverse impact of those deficits through the so-called “statutory override”, and because we are seeking to protect school level allocations of high needs funding through the conditions of grant attached to the DSG, we do not envisage any adverse impact on those children and young people with protected characteristics, including those with disabilities. The national funding formula for schools and high needs 26-27

Of course, this assumes that the cash channelled through the Schools Block of the DSG is actually spent on SEND by schools, and accounted for as such in academy and MAT budgets. I am sure that will be the case.

Still, those special schools that see the base funding per pupil stuck at £10,000 for another year will no doubt wonder what has happened to inflation accounting.

All we can hope for is that it won’t be too long before the SEND reforms are announced. However, with consultation session running into 2026, it is difficult to see how SEND reforms and local government reorganisation won’t become mixed up together, with who knows what results. Perhaps the new arrangements announced for Surrey might give an indication. Hopefully, the fact that West Northamptonshire has the largest reduction in the High Needs Block of any upper tier authority (25%+) is due to its past history, not its present resourcing.

New Year Resolutions 2025 – still relevant?

In January 2025, I penned a list of suggested amendments to the Schools Bill going through parliament. Well, the Bill is still going, and we still don’t know the outcome for SEND. But what of my other suggestions – listed below? Some, such as reducing the number of MATs has recently gained credibility on platforms such as LinkedIn. The idea of on-line schools has also gained attention as their use by ‘home schoolers’ increases.

The other suggestions have not yet been taken u, although a Select Committee at Westminster did discuss home to school transport in their session yesterday.

I still stand by all these suggestions made in this press release.

Time for radical action

Long-time education campaigner and recruitment authority, John Howson, calls upon the government to be more radical in its approach to education and schools.

My suggestions included

Academies

Some serious amalgamations might reduce overhead costs.
Could each LA area have no more than 5 MATs (1 each for CoE; RC, special schools and 2 for all other primary and secondary schools).

How much would that save in salary costs of senior staff? Would this release cash for teaching and learning?

I also suggested a new on-line school for all children missing education because they don’t have a school place along with some other important changes. 

All pupils on a school roll

(i)            All young people not in school, and between the ages of 5 and 16, and not registered either as home educated young people or with a registered private provider on the list of DfE approved schools, must be registered with a maintained on-line school, 

Notes

As the DfE accredits on-line private provision it should be able to create a category of on-line maintained school. This would allow the education of all state-funded young people to be regulated and inspected. It would end the practice of EOTAS (education other than at school) prescribed by s61 of the 2014 Education Act.

It would also allow for children moving into an area mid-year to immediately be placed on the roll of this school pending placement in a mainstream or special school. Many pupils with EHCPs transferring mid-year cannot be allocated a place in a special school because there are insufficient places. This would allow for oversight of their education by the local authority pending a placement. In a local authority such as Oxfordshire, there may be as many as 200+ pupils waiting for a school place as the school-year progresses. 

This would also assist those children forced to free home at short notice due to domestic abuse. At present, they leave everything behind and it cannot be forwarded in case it reveals the location of the refuge or other accommodation. This on-line school would provide registration without revealing a location where pupil’s work could be forwarded and education continued until the situation was resolved.

Those children in years 10 and 11 offered a part-time place at an FE college where the school doesn’t consent that are currently transferred to elective home education to allow funding to be agreed could also be transferred to the roll of this school.

Free school transport extended to 18 to match ‘learning leaving age’.

(i)            In Schedule 35B of the 1996 education Act replace ‘of compulsory school age’ with ‘Eighteen’.

(ii)           The provision free transport for pupils beyond of compulsory school age and up to the end of the school year in which the child attains 18 will only apply where the child received free travel before the of the compulsory school age and remains at the same school.

(iii)          Where the school a child attended up to the end of the compulsory school age does not provide post-16 education, transport will be provided free to the nearest post-16 education provision operating under schools’ regulation or the nearest Sixth Form College operating under Further Education regulations.

(iv)          Where a child transfers to a college or other setting operating under Further Education regulations that is not a Sixth Form College, the college will have a duty to provide, either free transport or make other suitable arrangements in a situation where the young person would have met the conditions for free transport had they remained in the school they attended until the end of their compulsory school age, up to the end of the academic year where the child reaches the age of 18.

(v)           Within the boundary of the London boroughs, school transport will be the responsibility of Transport or London. In combined Authorities with a mayor, the provision of school transport may be either a local authority ort a mayoral function by agreement. Where there is no agreement, the local authority will be responsible for any transport.

(vi)          The responsible body, either a local authority or the mayor, must produce an annual home to school transport authority for the guidance of parents and other interested in the provision of home to school transport. 

Note

This clause is to bring the transport arrangements into line with the learning leaving age of 18

Ending of selective education being treated as parental choice for transport decisions

(i)                  Where a local authority or other body responsibly for state funded secondary school education between the ages of 11 and 18 requires the passing of some form of selection for admittance to a school, regardless of whether the section process is administered by the school, a local authority or any other body, then a child admitted to their nearest selective school, or the nearest school with an available place, will be eligible for free transport up to age 18 while they remain on roll of the school, if they are an eligible child within Schedule 35B of the 1996 education Act.

Note

This clause prevents Kent and other LA with selective schools from regarding selective schools as a parental choice and, as a consequence, not providing free transport to children living more than 3 miles from the selective school.

Provision of sufficient teacher numbers in all subjects and all areas.

(i)                  Local authorities are encouraged to work with multi-academy trusts, dioceses and other promoters of schools to ensure a sufficient supply of suitable qualified teachers to ensure the delivery of the curriculum in such schools.

(ii)                Where no other provision exists, local authorities may establish and operate initial teacher training provision, as an approved provider by the Department for Education.

(iii)               Local authorities will produce an annual report to Council on the adequacy of staffing of schools within the authority.

(iv)               It shall be the duty of schools to cooperate with the local authority in providing such information as required by the local authority for the production of an annual report on the staffing of schools within the authority.

Note

With increasing teacher shortages, it is necessary to ensure a sufficient number of teachers at a local level. This clause provides for local authorities to offer initial teacher education where insufficient places are available locally in some or all phases and subjects taught by schools.

Removal of right for MATs to ‘pool’ balances of schools within the MAT in annual accounts

(i)                  When presenting their annual accounts, a mutli-academy trust must show the balances for each individual school in the account and must not ‘pool’ reserves into a single figure for the trust.

(ii)                The DfE shall publish each year a list of the salaries of all staff in academies and academy trusts earning more than £100,000 alongside the salary of the DCS for the same area where the academy or MAT are located. 

Note

This clause seeks to ensure that funds allocated to schools are spent at that school and not transferred to another school, and especially not to be used by schools in different local authority areas. The second part requires the DfE to collate information that is in MAT or academy annual accounts. but DfE should provide the data as part of their statistical information to the sector.

Schools Forum

(i)            The Cabinet Member or Committee Chair in a Committee system of local government responsible for supporting schools with the DSG and for the central block shall be a voting member of the Schools Forum. No substitute shall be allowed.

Note

This put the LA representative with control of EYFS and HNB funding on the same level of engagements as schools and others in respect of membership of a schools forum and end the anomaly of being permitted to be a member, but not to vote.

The governance of our schools – does pay matter?

Later this month Directors of Children’s Services will meet alongside their Directors of Adult Social Services colleagues for their annual conference. I am sure that one of the topics in the bar, if not in the conference hall, will be the pay grades for public servants.

In August this year, I once again started collecting data about headteacher vacancies, including starting salaries. This has been a research interest of mine since the early 1980s, and I still have my reports for the majority of years between 1984 and 2023, with the exception of the years between 2011-2014.

Unlike the pay of most teachers, and school leaders below the grade of headteacher, salaries of headteachers are less well controlled, and more subject to market forces. Interestingly, the first report of an advert for a headteacher on a salary of more than £100,000 was as far back as 1998. This was for the headship of a secondary school in an inner London borough.  

Fast forward to the autumn of 2025 and there have been four secondary schools with advertised starting salaries of £113,000. The most a headteacher of the largest schools can earn according to the pay scales is £158,000, if the school is located in the inner London Pay area.

Why does the pay of headteachers matter to directors of children’s services and their staff? At present, they still provide the governance backbone to much of the system-wide decision-making about local schooling. To do so effectively needs a pipeline of staff willing to take on the most senior roles supporting education.

These days, there are few educationalists in the top posts as directors as these are mostly held by those with a social work background. However, most authorities still have a senior post for an officer responsible for everything from SEND to school transport, pupil place planning and school building, whether opening new ones, closing existing ones because of falling roles or just maintaining the fabric of those open schools.  All this has to be achieved in cooperation with academy trusts, dioceses and the many others that now run schools across England.

When I came across a one form entry primary school, with just over 200 pupils in roll, offering a starting salary of £92,447, I wondered what the director earned in the same authority? Fortunately, senior officer salaries in local government are open to scrutiny, so I know that the director has a salary of less than £170,000, after a number of years of service. However, the most senior education officer earns less than £120,000, and little more than the advert for a secondary school headteacher quoted above.

The issue is about comparability. Chief officers of academy trusts earn more than their headteachers in most cases, sometimes substantially more. Is running a MAT much more challenging than being a senior officer in a local authority with responsibility for both community schools and authority wide strategy plus probably a couple of other roles as well? Are local government officers underpaid? I think you know my feeling on that issue, and I write as former cabinet member for children’s services.

Does it matter? I believe that it does, because it is another symptom of a refusal to understand the importance of a governance system for schooling that will help develop our schooling system for the needs of children that entered school at three this September, and won’t retire from work until the 2080s under present arrangements.

Governance matters, and for good governance you need good staff. Are current differentials between the salaries for headteachers, those running MATs, and our local government officers fair and equitable. I think not.

What is the role of the State in schooling?

This is an interesting philosophical question for a Sunday morning. It arises out of my post yesterday questioning a decision of the Labour government to allow a state school to open sites overseas, presumably for profit. Has Labour gone mad? | John Howson

The genesis of that blog  post was a tes magazine piece about a grammar school in London teaming up with a global brand to open sites in Dubai and Delhi Queen Elizabeth’s School to open fee-paying school in Dubai | Tes

What is the role of the state in schooling in the second quarter of the 21st century? When the 1870 Education Act was passed, as one of the Gladstone government’s first Bills before the new parliament, it was to ensure all children received at least some education. There was a feeling that a lack of literacy was resulting in British’s industry losing its advantage in the industrial revolution to countries with better educated populations.

After 1870, the State increasingly became the default position for schooling. Parents didn’t have to use it, but if they didn’t choose an alternative, basically the private sector or home schooling, then attending the local school from five to early teens was required of children. State paternalism or practical politics to allow the economy to continue to be successful?

155 years later, and we have the State, now run by a Labour government, sanctioning a state-funded school partnering with a global company to create school sites overseas selling its brand of education.

Why not allow this? After all, as someone pointed out on LinkedIn, the State too often rescues loss-making industries, why then shouldn’t it make money out of education?

Of course, the State already helps British Industry and commerce make money from exporting aspects of our successful education enterprise, from textbooks to teachers and private schools with sites overseas, as well as private schools bring in overseas students and their fees the government offers help and advice.

So, should State capitalism in this country support state schools opening branches overseas, and those schools making a profit on that work, to be ploughed back into their school in England, thus potentially earning it more cash than the State provides?

Firstly, profit is not a given. Secondly, how will the countries where such schools are located react. Happy not to worry about attracting expatriate workers because there will be high quality education for their children. And, also happy for its own citizens to attend such schools, with a different curriculum to what State schools in that country might teach?

The issue of state schools topping up their funding, whether from parents, donors or now profits, has worried me ever since I taught in Tottenham in the 1970s. School fetes, a feature of those days, run by primary schools in Highgate made thousands of pounds, those run by schools in Tottenham couldn’t match such income. Was this acceptable? At that time, local authorities ran schools and could compensate for this discrepancy. Now, the National Funding Formula make such compensation more challenging, except through the Pupil Premium.

The entrepreneur in me applauds the school making money overseas; the politician takes the opposite view. In this case, I think the politician wins. We need to debate afresh the role of the State in schooling in England, and both its purpose and its limits.

How easy is it for a mature entrant to become a headteacher?

The recent DfE research into promotions provides some food for thought School leadership in England 2010 to 2020: characteristics and trends

Page 69 of the report contains the following paragraph.

‘Teachers may enter a leadership grade more than one step above their current grade or may enter a leadership grade after being outside the system. These non-sequential promotions make up a significant minority of promotions. In primaries schools, for example, for every 100 senior leaders in 2016 who were heads in 2020, 12 classroom teachers, 12 middle leaders and 11 system entrants also became heads. In secondary schools, for every 100 senior leaders from 2016 who were heads in 2020, 3 classroom teachers, 5 middle leaders and 5 system entrants also became heads. Non-sequential promotions appear to be more common in primary schools, where leadership roles are more limited and ‘linear’ progression may be more difficult.’

Interestingly no mention is made in the text of the position in special schools, a disturbing oversight in view of the current concerns about SEND.

Following on from the text there is a histogram of ‘The Grade occupied by 2020 heads in 2016, split by school phase in 2020, in terms of FTE’.

GradePrimarySecondarySpecial
Head645252
Senior Leader263932
Middle Leader314
Classroom Teacher313
System Entrant369

There is no mention in the text of the fact that in many small primary schools there may be no senior leader, so any internal appointment would inevitably come from either a middle leader or classroom teacher.

What is interesting is the fact that almost one in ten headteachers in special schools in 2020 were system entrants in 2016. Where did these entrants come from, were they from special schools outside the state sector or did they bring other expertise to the post of headteacher.

How long does it take to become a headteacher?

In view of the fact that most headteachers seem to be appointed as a result of ‘linear’ progression through the different grades, especially in secondary schools, how long does it take to reach headship?

Is there an age or length of service by which, if a teacher has not reached assistant head grade, they unlikely to ever make it to a headship? If so, do mature entrants that become teachers after the age of thirty face a promotion ceiling in their careers? Is the position different in primary schools, with their flatter leadership teams, than in secondary schools with assistant, deputy and headteachers roles, often now overseen by an executive head.

The DfE research showed that in 2010, headteachers had a median of 27 years since qualification, and that this reduced to 23 years in 2016 and then rose slightly to 24 years in 2020. The median years of experience of senior leaders reduced from 18 years in 2010 to 17years in 2014 where it remained until 2020. The reduction between the upper quartiles for years since qualification was greatest for senior leaders, 24 years since qualification in 2020 compared with 30 years in 2010. There was virtually no change in the lower quartile between 2010 and 2020, for example, this was 13 years since qualification for senior leaders in both 2010 and 2020.

As this data covers both primary and secondary schools, it is difficult to know whether promotion is faster in the smaller primary schools, if you are lucky with turnover, that in large secondary schools with many more layers of leadership. Clearly, some mature entrants achieve headship, but the message must be that if you want promotion as a mature entrant, start your journey quickly and use the skills you have brought to the profession from your former career. A decade ago, I wrote this blog about the career of Mrs Clarke who went from volunteer to headteacher in the same school. Congratulations Mrs Clarke | John Howson

Sadly, the research is silent about entrants from different subject backgrounds. Do historians and geographers, generally joining smaller department, find progress to a headship easier than teachers of English and mathematics where there may be several grades of middle leadership within the department?

We should encourage mature entrants, but make it clear that those joining after the age of thirty may find career progression more of a challenge, especially where governing bodies value length of service rather than skills and expertise for the role. No doubt MATs with more professionals involved in promotion decisions will be more open to those entering teaching later in life.

Open college for A Level physics?

A Labour government pioneered the Open University. Today, another Labour Prime minister will announce what amounts to a type of Open Hospital, where consultations will be on-line after referral.

So far, the DfE seems to be lagging behind in using the on-line technology for the benefit of those unable to study subjects they are interested in studying but are unable to do so, whether because of teacher shortages, or indeed, other reasons.

How about starting with an open college programme for A level physics?

Now the idea of on-line learning isn’t a new one. Indeed, there are already providers out there offering ‘A’ Level Physics on-line, and the idea of correspondence learning has a long and valued history in this country.

However, the State has not traditionally been involved at the delivery level. Perhaps it is time to change that approach. The shortage of teachers of physics means some children either aren’t offered the opportunity to study the subject at ‘A’ Level or are being taught by great teachers but sometimes with sub-optimal subject knowledge and qualifications. Good teaching can overcome these challenges, but some young people may still miss out.

Integrating a national offering through an on-line college would not be without its own problems. Either the on-line timetable drives all other timetabling, or in order to allow everyone access the modules would need be both recorded and delivered live more than once a week.

Practical sessions could be arranged for weekends and holidays, when resources are currently being under-used or not used at all. These sessions would also allow for group learning to take place, although a weekend would not be the same as a summer school.

Initially, any scheme should be offered free to candidates enrolled through a school or college, and the DfE should pick up the production costs. Home schoolers would be offered a competitive fee package.

The college course could also be tailored to help schools that face unexpected staffing challenges, either in-year or between years. I am not sure whether there is currently any evidence about underperformance due to staffing changes and staff sickness.

Would the Institute of Physics lead on such a project? They would seem the obvious candidate to provide the subject expertise. The DfE already has the expertise on advertising and enrolment, gained from nearly a decade of handing applications for teaching courses.

I am sure that there are international examples of this type of work. The obvious one was that of the School of the Air in Australia, where I drooped into the visitor centre last summer. There is also the vast amount of knowledge gained during the covid pandemic that risks being lost as ‘business as usual’ now seems to be the policy. Perhaps BETT could take a theme for the show each year. One year might be, ‘making the best of on-line learning’.

This is very much a thought piece, and I would welcome comments, such as ‘already doing this, but needs wider awareness’ to ‘teaching must always be face to face, and the shortage of teachers of physics is not an issue: move the students to the teachers.’

Is it fashionable to become a teacher once more?

The September 2025 data on recruitment to postgraduate teacher preparation courses was published earlier today by the DfE. Initial teacher training application statistics for courses starting in the 2025 to 2026 academic year – Apply for teacher training – GOV.UK

The numbers in themselves weren’t a surprise as the signs of recovery, almost across the board, in interest in becoming a secondary school teacher have been there for the past few moths. Indeed, I have remarked before that the teacher supply crisis of the past decade may now be at an end.

Almost across the board, both offers and numbers accepted are well up on September 2024, so that is god news for recruitment for next September.

The one ‘fly in the ointment’ is English. Here both offers – down from 2,487 last September to 2,161 this September and numbers accepted – down from 2,109 to 1,760 this September – must be a genuine cause for concern,

The questions that need answering are: is it across all age-groups or just new graduates or career switchers; is is across all regions or just some? Are there any other significant features that might need considering, such as whether a lack of financial support during training is a matter for concern.

In  other subjects, it won’t be until the ITT census is published in December that we will know how man y of those accepted actually turned up and stayed the early part of their course.

However, acceptances in maths, up from 2,251 to 2,617 and physics up from 988 to 1,313 are encouraging to see. The 30% increase in acceptance in physics might be unprecedented in recent history – the covid year apart.

The news in the arts, even apart from English is less good. RE accepted 418 (417 last year); Music 343 (322) Classics 42 (52). However, in art and design 902 (820) and history 936 (813).

It is worrying that the number accepted in the Southy West provider region fell, albeit from 1,800 to 1,799 whereas in London acceptances for training providers rose from 5,144 to 5,742.

Candidate numbers increased from those in the age-groups under-30, but either fell or were flat for candidates from the age-groups over 30. However, acceptances did not follow a similar pattern as more older candidates were accepted than last year. There needs to be a debate about the balance of new teachers necessary to provide for the leadership grade posts in twenty years’ time. Managing that issue within equality legislation is a real challenge. However, in a profession where senior leaders start as classroom teachers, it is one that should not be ignored.

How much of the interest in teaching as a career is down to the feeling that AI will remove many entry level graduate jobs is something to consider. However, if it means when applications for 2026 entry open in a couple of months’ time  that more graduates are considering teaching than in the past, I will heave a sigh of relief, as no doubt will the Secretary of State.

Admissions matter: vulnerable children must not be refused schooling

SchoolsWeek has published an interesting report on admissions policies by schools. Shut out: How schools are turning away vulnerable pupils

As regular readers know, this issue has troubled me ever since I became a county councillor in 2012.

I have reproduced my previous blog post about the topic from 2021 below.

While I was a cabinet member in Oxfordshire, up until May this year, I asked officers to look into a virtual school to admit every child without a school, and not being home educated, and ensure there was some daily learning interaction with each child. Why successive governments have ignored the issue, and oppositions haven’t pressed them about it is one of my great disappointments.

It was therefore welcome, when last November, after I challenged the Minister at the ADCS conference about ensuring local authorities had power over all in-year admissions whether to maintained schools or academies to see the clause in the Bill. This is a good first step.

We all need to fight for the most vulnerable in society, and all involved in education have a special duty to do so. Children only get one change at schooling: we need to ensure it available to them

 Time for Jacob’s Law

Posted on January 23, 2021

The naming of a young person in Serious Case Review Report is rare. But this week the Report into the death of Jacob in Oxfordshire contained his name. The family gave permission, and hope it will ensure the report is more widely read and acted upon. If so, it is a brave decision, and one that I applaud.

You can read the Report at https://www.oscb.org.uk/oscb-publishes-a-child-safeguarding-practice-review-concerning-jacob/ Full report link at bottom of the press notice

Three agencies, the Police, Children’s Social Services and Education have learning points to take from the Review. In this blog, I will concentrate on the education aspects, as they contain a message heard before on this blog.

Jacob was born in Oxfordshire, later moved to Northumbria, where I suspect he was educated in a First School, and then a Middle School, before being moved in Year 6 to an ‘alternative education provision’ – presumably a PRU?

In July 2017, note the date, the family returned to Oxfordshire. The Report concludes that:

5.1 He was not on roll at any education provision and was a child missing education for 22 months

Jacob’s mandatory need for education was not provided by Oxfordshire County Council when he lived at home and when he was in the care of the local authority both in and when out of county for 5 months. Four educational settings were asked to take Jacob on roll, however largely due to his perceived behaviours and risks to other students he remained off roll for almost 2 years. Jacob’s family were offered the right of appeal when places were refused. His situation was considered by education panels such as the In Year Fair Access Panel and Children Missing Education to little effect and his needs were overseen and monitored by various professionals, including the Virtual School and the Independent Reviewing Officer Service whilst in local authority care. There were no formal dispute resolutions raised14 by Children’s Social Care and his situation was not escalated to the Education Skills and Funding Agency (ESFA) as it should have been.

Had this been an isolated case then this would be understandable, but a month before Jacob arrived back in Oxfordshire I had had an exchange in public with the Cabinet Member for Education at the June 2017 Cabinet meeting of the County Council. Not all questions are for political gain, and this was one where I genuinely thought that there was an issue to be addressed. The question asked:

Oxfordshire county council CABINET – 20 JUNE 2017 ITEM 4 – QUESTIONS FROM COUNTY COUNCILLORS

Question from Councillor Howson to Councillors Harrod and Hibbert-Biles “How many children taken into care over the past three school years and placed ‘out county’ have had to wait for more than two weeks to be taken onto the roll of a school in the area where they have been moved to and what is the longest period of time a child has waited for a place at a school in the area where they have been re-located to during this period?” 

As you will see, I asked both the Education Cabinet Member and Cllr Harrod for Children’s Social Services and received this answer:

Answer Over the past three years it has been exceptional for a Looked After Child to be taken onto the roll of an out of county school in under two weeks. Indeed, of the nine cases of primary age pupils we’ve looked at, the quickest a pupil was placed was 12 days (there were two) and the slowest was 77 days. For the 22 secondary age pupils the picture is even worse, with 3 weeks the quickest placement and a couple taking fully 6 months to get some of our most vulnerable young people into a stable school setting.

The main reason for this completely unacceptable state of affairs is that the Council has no power to direct an academy to admit a Looked After Child. The only way we can force an academy’s hand is to get a direction from the Educations & Skills Funding Agency and this, as you can see from the foregoing times, can be a very long-winded bureaucratic process.

The fact that it takes so long for academies to admit our Looked After Children shows how doggedly our officers pursue the matter; I suspect that many other local authorities simply give up when they meet an intransigent academy that doesn’t want to take responsibility for educating their vulnerable young people.

The minutes of the meeting note my supplementary question and the response as:

Supplementary: In response to an invitation from Councillor Howson for the Cabinet Member to work with Councillor Howson and the labour opposition to see what could be done Councillor Hibbert-Biles recognised that it was a national situation, and she would be asking for a meeting with local MPs and relevant minister.

How distressing to read the national recommendation in the Serious Case Review that:

Recommendation 2: This Review asks the Department for Education to acknowledge the education key learning and findings from Jacob’s Review and provide feedback as to the effectiveness of the Education and Skills Funding Agency process in resolving issues in a timely manner. The Review asks the Department of Education to provide statute and guidance to local areas and their communities on how to manage the Governance arrangements with academy run schools and local education departments who currently cannot be mandated to accept children on roll.

And in the local recommendations that:

Action Plan 2: The Education System

The key learning set out below is fully addressed in this action plan for children in the education system in Oxfordshire, overseen by the Chair of the OSCB Safeguarding in Education Sub-Group Key Learning:

An education system that ensures:

1. The paramount importance of the role of schools in keeping children safe

2. An education package is put in place in a timely manner for those children who may show challenging behaviours

3. Those children missing education are known and action is swift

This Action Plan should pay particular attention to ensuring: – Restorative work to resolve the fragmented arrangements between academy schools, alternative provisions and the local authority to ensure collective ownership – Policy and procedures to track when children are not on roll – The function of Education Panels in Oxfordshire (In Year Fair Access and Children Missing Education) – The local application of the Education Skills Funding Agency intervention – Education packages for children who may be at risk of exploitation and also present a risk to others.

For those that read the whole Report, there is further evidence on page 31 and footnote 56 of other issues about school admissions around the same time.

Here’s what I wrote on this blog on the 23rd June 2017:

In my post on 11th June, after the outcome of the general election was known, I suggested some issues that could still be addressed by a government without an overall majority. First among these was the issue of school places for young people taken into care and placed outside of the local authority. They have no guarantee of access to a new school within any given time frame at present. It seemed to me daft that a parent could be fined for taking a child out of school for two weeks to go on holiday but a local authority could wait six months for a school place to be provided for a young person taken into care.

The Cabinet Question reproduced above then appears followed by:

I found the answer deeply depressing. However, the good news is that MPs from the three political parties representing Oxfordshire constituencies have agreed to work together to take the matter forward. Thank you to MPs, Victoria Prentice, Layla Moran and Anneliese Dodds, for agreeing to seek action to remedy this state of affairs.

If readers have data about the issue elsewhere in England, I would be delighted to hear from you, so pressure can be put on officials nationally to ensure a rapid change in the rules.

I had forgotten that unique letter signed by every Oxfordshire MP after I had made my suggestion.

Nothing happened. Jacob died. We cannot wait any longer.

The DfE must act now to ensure all children have a school place within a specified time frame, whether they move to a new area or are excluded by a school. There must be a register of unplaced children of school age that is regularly reviewed by a senior officer and a politician in each local authority, and Ofsted should update the Secretary of State each year about the national picture.

It is time for a Jacob’s Law. His death will not then have been for nothing.

Read more on this BBC Report into the case https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-55841644

How many schools will close?

I came across this interesting article by Richard Tilley BIRTH RATES: A COMPLEX, BRUTAL REALITY In the article Richard considers the realities for schools of both the current reduction in pupil numbers currently working its way through the school system, and the longer-term effects of declining family sizes on school populations.

Find more pupils. This is, I guess, what any headteacher and Board of governors will want to do in a free market, where pupils equal cash. This is as a result of the national funding formula that is geared to the market principles of rewarding success through pupil numbers and failure to recruit enough pupils leads to budget deficits, and eventual school closure.

Now that’s all very well as a model for shops selling items that are optional to buy, and even what food we buy is our choice within our financial constraints.

Anyway, is state schooling such a free market good? Alternatively, is it a service provided by the State that should be available to everyone that wants to access it. Assuming the latter, and that is what, broadly speaking, the State has offered parents since 1870, although in different forms at different times since then. The question becomes one of how do ensure a reasonable distribution of schools, especially in rural areas, and in some of our older estates with ageing populations?

Personally, I think that the present National Funding Formula rewards good marketing by schools by paying a bounty for pupils recruited. However, the alternative, you send your child to the nearest school regardless of how effective it is at outcomes, may be equally unacceptable. That is, unless some organisation, and I don’t mean ofsted, with its infrequent visits and no follow up, but a MAT, diocese or local authority takes control of ensuring the quality of education.

The questions with falling school rolls, is how can these disparate groups manage to plan the distribution of schools, and especially primary schools, coherently across a local area where several different groups may have a stake in some of the schools? Do we need planning, or do we leave it to market forces?

In my view, the local State, as corporate parent, should take the lead in answering this question, even though it will produce challenging outcomes. I lived through the re-organsiation of schools in Haringey in the late 1970s, when rolls were falling dramatically, and it wasn’t a pleasant experience for either officers or politicians. Indeed, I wonder what Jeremy Corbyn’s memories of that period are, when he was a councillor and not yet an MP?

To clarify my thoughts about this topic, in a way that a blog of this length cannot, I have drafted a play ‘Heading off’ about the life of a primary school over the course of year that ends up with the school being closed through no fault of its own. Email me if you would like a copy of the script at dataforeduction@gmail.com

DfE wasting money on ITT

The latest data on applications to postgraduate ITT courses appeared this morning. Such are the wonders of modern technology that data generated on the 18th of August can be programmed to appear on the bank holiday Monday in order to keep up the sequence of posting the data on the last Monday of the month by the DfE. Initial teacher training application statistics for courses starting in the 2025 to 2026 academic year – Apply for teacher training – GOV.UK

As is already known, 2025 is going to be best year for recruitment to graduate teacher preparation courses since 2013, especially in many traditional shortage subjects, such as the sciences and mathematics. But it is not ’a bed of roses’ all round.

AUGUST 2025 OFFER
SUBJECT202420252025 TARGETDIFF ON 2024DIFF TO TARGET
CLASSICS665360-13-7
ENGLISH239920801950-319130
RE494491780-3-289
  
OTHERS454472252018-2048
DRAMA29833762039-283
MUSIC37840756529-158
COMPUTING642884895242-11
D&T68076496584-201
BUS STUDIES25232490072-576
 
PE16751734725591009
ART & DESIGN8711087680216407
HISTORY9631100790137310
MATHEMATICS259730042300407704
MFL149816771460179217
GEOGRAPHY9421093935151158
CHEMISTRY9201054730134324
PHYSICS128516771410392267
BIOLOGY14151600985185615

Three subjects have recorded fewer offers this year than last year. Two, classics and drama, will miss their target. In English it would be touch and go to meet the target by the date of the ITT census in early December from just this source of trainees. However, Teach First and other routes should mean that the target will be comfortably met. But, the applications patterns for 2026 will need careful monitoring.

Five subjects won’t meet their targets this year, even with Teach First. Computing should, although it hasn’t yet done so from the courses included in this dataset.  

The remaining subjects have all recorded increased offers this year and, in most cases, are way over target. This raises the question about whether or not the DfE should once again consider recruitment controls in some subjects. After all, although we will need teachers to cover the missing trainees in the group of ‘other’ subjects, will the 1,000 extra PE teachers offered places over the target have the appropriate skill sets to fill those vacancies? They are certainly unlikely to fill the music vacancies, but presumably could be offered business studies teaching.

Hopefully, the DfE will be matching up to date vacancy data with the targets generated from historical data to see what changes might be needed for 2026 entry.  After all, there isn’t money to waste in the public exchequer.

There also appears to be over supply in the primary sector

SUBJECT202420252025 TARGETDIFF ON 2024DIFF TO TARGET
PRIMARY106101140576507953755

But I wonder whether, as in some secondary subjects, some candidates are recorded holding more than one offer. Even so, this is a sizeable overshoot and may cause issues next September in some parts of the country for trainees seeking teaching posts in primary schools. Especially, if a combination of falling rolls and a reluctance to move jobs in a deteriorating labour market overall sees fewer posts advertised.

I believe that Ministers need to do some hard thinking about balancing supply and demand for teachers and the cost to the public purse.