The revolving door of school leadership

Posted on April 26, 2022 by John Howson

The National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) has published some interesting research on the amount of time newly appointed senior leaders stay in post as part of their contribution to the debate about the pay and conditions for teachers. Apparently, more are leaving within the first five years after appointment. New data reveals sharp increase in number of school leaders leaving the profession within 5 years (naht.org.uk)

After 40 years of studying leadership trends this is an interesting set of data. The key results are shown in the table below.

Percentage of postholders that are new to post that have left within 5 years of appointment
		Head teachers	Deputy heads	Assistant heads	Middle leaders
Primary phase	2011	22%	25%	26%	43%
	2015	25%	26%	29%	46%

Secondary phase	2011	35%	32%	37%	43%
	2015	37%	37%	39%	44%

Source: NAHT

The first thing to notice is that the data are expressed in terms of percentages. Taking just headteachers, as an example, in a typical year TeachVac records around 1,500 advertisements for primary headteachers, and 350-400 for secondary headteachers.

Using those numbers, the change would be from 330 to 345 departing in the primary sector between 20111 and those appointed in 2015, and in the secondary sector, assuming 400 vacancies each year – the upper end of the range- the change would be an increase of eight headteachers.

Since the press release didn’t calibrate the size of the market in each year, it isn’t clear whether more opportunities in the five-year period would have provided more leaders with a chance to move early in their careers. Certainly, the period from 2019 onwards has seen the start of the bulge in secondary pupil numbers and the creation of some new schools requiring new leaders. The period also witnessed the development and consolidation of Multi-Academy Trusts central staffing and some of those posts may well have been taken by school leaders in post for less than five years.

The press release also doesn’t make clear whether departures were tracked to see where the school leader went? If young leaders are quitting the profession, then that’s a serious situation, especially in the primary phase where there are fewer deputy headteachers and headteachers and any departures at that stage would be challenging to the sector.

As primary teaching, even at the more senior ranks, is now largely populated by women, the age profile of those leaving may also be worth exploring. Are some taking a career break for caring roles, and do we need a ‘keep in touch’ scheme for these leavers? Are there issues with certain types of school and does the data say anything to the levelling up agenda that might interest the STRB?

School leadership, whether at middle leadership or senior leadership levels is a challenging task and these percentages must be viewed with concern, but there is much more to discover from these percentages than might appear from the headline. However, that’s the aim of a good headline; to make one read the text that follows.

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.

Free School Meals and staff turnover

Posted on May 31, 2021 by John Howson

Is the level of Free School Meals (FSM) recorded by a school reflected in the level of staff turnover? Do secondary schools with the highest FSM percentages record more staff turnover than schools with relatively low percentage of pupils on Free School Meals?

TeachVac can compare its data on vacancies to date in 2021 with the DfE’s published information on Free School Meals. The end of May normally marks the point where most schools have completed their staffing for September, and existing staff have reached the point where they may resign at the endo of this school year.

As a result, it was relatively easy to look at TeachVac’s vacancy data for the period form 1^st January up to Friday 28^th May and compare staff turnover against the percentage of pupils on Free School Meals. However, staff turnover is affected by a number of features. A new school may have relatively few pupils, but be adding staff as the school grows in size. Schools in different areas vary in size, with some schools of over 2,000 pupils and some schools in rural areas with only around 500 pupils, and no post-16 provision.

In order to take account of school size, the number of pupils on roll was divided by the recorded number of vacancies recorded by TeachVac. Thus, a school with 1,000 pupils and 5 vacancies between January and May would create an index figure of 200, whereas a similar size school with 10 vacancies would have recorded an index figure of 100. The lower the index number, the greater the turnover of staff.

This method doesn’t take account of growing schools, so it could be possible for a school with few pupils on Free School meals to still record a low index score if it was growing in size. The absence of a vacancy identifying number also complicated the issue because repeat advertisements may possibly being recorded. TeachVac does its best to eliminate such adverts.

An analysis was conducted into the outcomes in terms of recorded vacancies during the first five months of 2021 for secondary schools across the West Midlands region whose data was captured by TeachVac. The region contains rural areas such as most of the county of Herefordshire and urban areas such as Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Coventry.

The first look at the TeachVac data suggests that for schools with a Free School Meal percentage of less than 20% there is little difference in the index score. The majority of schools had a score of 300 or less, suggesting relatively high levels of vacancies regardless of the percentage of pupils on Free School Meals.

For schools with Free School Meals above 20% of the school population there was a trend towards schools with higher FSM percentages having a higher turnover index score. 16 of the 20 schools recorded with a FSM percentage above 40% had turnover indexes below 250 per pupil, and most of these schools had an index of below 200 per pupil.

One caveat must be that 2021 is not a ‘normal’ recruitment cycle. In some schools there has been an element of ‘catch-up’ in recruitment following the period between March and September 2020 when most teacher recruitment slowed to almost a complete halt. It would be possible to compare the 2021 data with that for 2018 and 2019 in order to see whether there has been a ‘covid’ effect and if certain schools have been more affected? There may also be both a rural and small school effect. As some parts of the West Midlands still have selective schools that is another variable that needs consideration.

Nevertheless, this quick first look at the data from one region does raise questions about teacher supply and the issue of policy towards ‘leveling up’. Can a market-based approach to teacher supply create the improvements in outcomes for pupils if schools with high levels of Free School Meals if such schools are finding staff recruitment more of a challenge than their neighbours with lower percentages of Free School Meals?

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.

Miss a year or repeat a year?

Posted on January 30, 2021 by John Howson

Schooling in England has always been about pupils progressing in age-related cohorts based around an August/September birthday cut-off point. The exception was in those independent schools, celebrated in literature such as Tom Brown’s Schooldays, where a ‘remove’ form operated for those so far behind they couldn’t really move forward with their peers.

The issue of how to deal with lost learning as a result of the covid pandemic and school closures has started to revolve around the debate about either missing a year or repeating a year. Both have resource implications, as well as an impact on learners

By chance, I have experience of both approaches. The north London selective secondary school I attended in the late 1950s and early 1960s with my twin brother had a policy whereby the top form – of four – missed out the third year (Year 9) and progressed to complete a full set of ‘O’ levels in four rather than five years. Those pupils also studied Latin rather than taking woodwork or domestic science (food technology within design and technology for those not familiar with historical education terminology). The aim was to allow time for a third year in the sixth form to prepare for Oxbridge entrance examinations for those deemed bright enough to take that route.

These pupils subject to accelerated progression certainly lost some learning in all subjects, but the curriculum in subjects where there is a clearly defined path to examination success were not allowed to suffer.

As the twin, that took the usual five years to progress through the system to examinations at sixteen, I benefitted from having my other twin forge a path. When we were both in the sixth form this meant that by choosing the same three subjects for ‘A’ level I had a ready-made set of notes to use.

As a result of the happenstance of our parents taking a civil service post in Africa, and the problem of needing to pass ‘O’ level English Language, I repeated the final year of the sixth form, spending three years in the sixth rather than the more usual two, and thus experiencing some of the issues around repeating a year.

There are pros and cons to both approaches, but what might determine the outcome is resources. Do schools have the staff and space to allow a whole year group to repeat a year? For secondary schools, so long as they don’t have an intake, it might be feasible, but that would put pressure on primary schools to accommodate an extra year group. Where rolls are falling, this might be possible, but in some areas there won’t be the space, although finding the staff should be less of an issue.

Higher Education and further education would lose an intake, and the funds associated with these students. The government would need to compensate these institutions for lost revenue or risk financial pressure sending some institutions into real financial trouble.

A whole cohort missing a year might require a rethink of the examination syllabuses, but there are plenty of examples of children that prospered despite having missed education for health reasons. Indeed, I missed quite a lot of Year 8 due to having two operations. Perhaps that is why I struggled with the English Language examination.

A decision will need to be made soon, especially if the government wants to spend more cash on a catch-up scheme. This is not a decision that can be left to the market to solve fairly for all pupils.

A weak economy won’t help school funding

Posted on October 15, 2019 by John Howson

According to information contained in a House of Commons Library research Report on Education Funding, the government is either shooting itself in the foot or presenting statistics in a manner that makes already challenging comparisons difficult, if not impossible.

The Library Research Paper, BRIEFING PAPER Number 1078, 9th October 2019 entitled: Education spending in the UK, states on page 11 that

“the Department for Education currently records all spending on academies under secondary education. Secondary schools account for most of the spending on academies, but there are also include large numbers of primary and special academies. They are looking to improve the separation of spending across the education categories in the future. This skews the primary/secondary breakdown somewhat and limits the comparisons of primary and secondary spending between the home countries of the UK.” (Their emphasis, not mine)

As the number of academies in the primary and secondary sector increases, this method or recording allied to the fact that academies and free schools have a different financial year to maintained schools makes comparisons even harder than before.

Nevertheless, the Report is able to demonstrate how closely funding follows two key influences; demography and the state of the economy. For the past few years, both of these have been negative in the sense that the economy took a hit after the banking crisis at just the time when the birth rate was rising to higher levels than previously. Both factors created an almost perfect storm, not least because rising pupil numbers means a greater percentage of education expenditure has to be used for capital projects rather than revenue spending. Add in the laudable decision to raise the learning leaving age to 18 from 16, and another funding pressure was added to the equation.

The cuts facing schools would undoubtedly have been worse, unless taxes had risen, if the contribution of participants to the funding of higher education had not been increased by the raising of tuition fees and also the manner in which these loans were accounted for on the government’s balance sheet.

The Report also notes that “In 2017 an estimated £23 billion was spent privately on education.” Citing Consumer trends, ONS, as the source of the figure. Now, I assume this will include all the funds parents spend on private tutoring ahead of exams, and on Maths Centres that have sprung up around the country, as well as what the Labour Party includes in its definition of private education that it would seek to abolish.

Apart from probably driving at least part of that provision of schooling offshore, where the export income would be lost to the National Exchequer, there would obviously be the cost of educating such pupils as needed to be educated by the State. I don’t know how many billions that would cost, but it would have to be found from somewhere.

However, I understand the feeling that education is so important that it cannot be left to personal choice, but only offered by the State. From there it is but a short step to mandating only one type of state school that parents have to send their children to attend. As a Liberal, this is not a road that I would want to go along.

4: the smallest recorded national pupil statistic in Education?

Posted on July 2, 2019 by John Howson

You don’t often find numbers below 10 in DfE statistics, as there is usually too much of a risk that individual pupils could be identified. However, such small numbers can and do crop up from time to time. One such is in table 5 of this year’s statistics about schools and their pupils. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/schools-pupils-and-their-characteristics-january-2019

The largest number in this Table is 4,716,244 – the number of pupils in state-funded primary schools counted in the January 2019 census. The smallest number is just four (4). This is the number of pupils of the Chinese ethnic group recorded as in Pupil Referral Units. In 2018, the number was five (5).

Apart from in Local Authority Alternative Provision, the percentage of minority Ethnic Pupils is greater in 2019 than it was in 2018. The increase was less in the primary sector, up from 33.1 to 33.5 than in the secondary sector, up from 30.3 to 31.3.

Interestingly, the ‘Black’ group as a whole registered no change in their share of the primary school population; steady at 5.5%, whereas the Asian Group that are mostly from the Indian sub-continent increased from 11.1% to 11.2%. Pupils of any other White background other than White British; Irish and the traveller and the Roma communities, increased from 7.1% to 7.3% making them the second largest sub-group in the primary sector.

With the downturn in admissions at the entry level of the primary school, it is interesting to ask whether birth rates are falling across all ethnic groups. Certainly, the difference in the total percentage of pupils from ethnic minority backgrounds between the primary and secondary sectors that was 2.8 in 2018, is now 2.2 in 2019.

Pupils from the Black ethnic group continue to be over-represented in both special schools and pupil referral units, although not in local authority alternative provision. However, the percentage of Back pupils in PRUs fell from 7.2% of pupils in such units in 2018, to 6.8% in 2019, against a percentage of 6.0% in the secondary sector from where most, but not all, PRU pupils have come from.

In numerical terms, the number of Black pupils in PRUs declined from 1,205 in 2018 to 1,104 in 2019. However, some might now be in alternative provision settings rather than in PRUs. Of course, there is no information about the scale of the off-rolling of pupils over the past year, and thus the ethnic backgrounds of pupils that have been taken off school rolls.

I suspect that the ethnic group labelled as ‘Mixed’ may well see the largest increases over the next few years as society becomes more diverse in nature. There are now around half a million pupil classified as from the ‘Mixed’ ethnic group in schools across England.

Almost one in five pupils in primary schools does not have English as their first language, although the total doesn’t identify the skewed distribution that can be found across England, with some schools teaching pupils that speak many different languages at home. This can be a real challenge to some less well funded primary schools. There is also the question as to whether the State should fund any first language tuition for these pupils or whether that is solely the responsibility of the family?

John Howson

Education and the numbers that affect what happens

Tag Archives: secondary schools