Falling School Rolls: not just a London problem?

Posted on October 25, 2026 by John Howson

Over the next few years, schools across England will be forced to come to terms with falling pupil numbers. As I indicated in an earlier set of posts on this blog, falling rolls can either be managed by the market, through parental choice and selective school’s decisions on their capacity levels without recourse to other local schools, or can the reduction in numbers be managed through some form of innervation, either by the DfE or by some local body, such as a local authority or an elected Mayor.

How pressing is the problem for secondary schools at present? I have looked at a random selection of schools, almost all secondary schools, that have advertised so far in this autumn term of 2026 for a teacher with expertise in music. The usefulness of looking at music is it is a subject where any vacancy is unlikely to be covered by someone else already on the staff. This is because of the subject knowledge needed.

The data for the schools with vacancies has been compared with the DfE public database that contains columns for a school’s ‘number on roll’ and ‘school capacity’. It is not clear how often this data are updated, or when it refers to, but there don’t seem to have been any changes between the beginning of September and this week, so it may be reasonably recent.

The following table for the different regions of England reveals an interesting picture

LOCAL AUTHORITY REGION	20%+ SPARE PLACES	19%- 10% SPARE PLACES	9% TO 5% SPARE PLACES	5% SPARE PLACES TO 4% OVER CAPACITY	5%+ OVER CAPACITY	TOTAL
EAST ENGLAND	1	0	2	1	0	4
EAST MIDLANDS	2	2	3	3	1	11
LONDON	1	4	2	11	4	22
NORTH EAST	0	1	0	1	0	2
NORTH WEST	0	2	1	3	1	7
SOUTH EAST	1	1	1	0	3	6
SOUTH WEST	2	1	8	0	0	11
WESTMIDLANDS	1	2		1	1	5
YORKS & HUMBER	0	1	2	0	2	5
ALL REGIONS	8	14	19	20	12	73

Of the 73 schools with a vacancy record – about just under 2% of secondary schools, so a reasonable opportunity sample – 41 already had more than 10% spare capacity; 20 had between 5% spare capacity and 5% over capacity, and might be regarded as working at capacity; 12 schools were more than 5% over capacity. Of this last grouping, three were selective schools, and another a highly regarded specialist school. Seven of the 12 schools were either in London or the South East.

Of the schools with the most spare capacity, only one was in London, and the other seven were spread across five of the other regions, suggesting that parental choice might already be playing a significant part in how full to capacity certain school are even today.

Only two of the 22 schools with the most spare capacity are church schools: both are Catholic schools. One Church of England school features in the list of most over-subscribed schools. That school is in London, and may have benefitted from a closeness to the Elizabeth Line, and TfL’s generous transport policy for travel to and from school.

The real issues to come will be both protecting schools in rural areas that serve an area where closure would mean an excessively long journey for some pupils and ensuring all schools can offer what is regarded as the whole curriculum up to age 16. What minority subjects is it allowable for a school not to offer at Key Stage 4?

One thing is certain, many schools with falling rolls will not be recruiting because of their budgets already being under pressure. Might some schools already have dropped music, so not be included in this sample?

I hope that local politicians across England are now asking Scrutiny Committees to be looking into the position locally, and whether any action will be needed, and, if so, by whom?

Selective schools and falling rolls – Part 2 Do we need a national policy?

Posted on October 7, 2026 by John Howson

Do we need a national policy on how local areas deal with falling school rolls? If so, who should decide? Local authorities – democratically elected, but with little power over academies and voluntary schools? Regional Directors – covering wide areas, and with no democratic accountability? CEOs advising the Board of Governance of MATs – unelected in both cases? Mayors, where they exist, but what about where they don’t?

My preference is for democracy, so, as regular reads might expect, I vote for local authorities, assisted by a committee from the other groups. However, some of those might not want to take challenging decisions, so they might need some guidelines for the DfE and the Labour government for them to work within.

I have looked at the ‘capacity’ and ‘number on roll’ in three councils with selective schools (Slough, Medway and London Borough of Barnet). In all three of these authorities, capacity exceeds rolls. Generally. However, selective schools exceed capacity more than they have spare places. In non-selective schools the picture is more mixed.

In pupil place planning for the future, whoever takes the decisions, there are some questions to answer, based on the evidence of the data about school rolls from schools in these three authorities.

Have all-thorough schools worked?

Has the extension of faith schools beyond a few Christian denominations and Jewish schools after 1997 worked?

What do parents think of single-sex education these days?

Have new forms of academies and free schools flourished?

What part can parental choice play in a falling rolls scenario?

What is both any economic cost, and any educational cost associated with doing nothing?

A final question. Why does the DfE not have admissions policies for three schools across the authorities; two in one authority?

As these are all urban/suburban areas, transport costs don’t matter very much for most families. I will look at selective schools in rural areas later in another post.

It is interesting that the London borough has a smaller capacity gap than either of the other unitary councils. However, the total in all three authorities conceals a wide range of outcomes. I referred to this issue in my post Are dashboards useful? | John Howson where I made clear that just looking at totals is rarely good enough. Measures of central tendency also need to be considered.

The data in this post has used ‘capacity’ and ‘numbers on roll’. Reviewing authorities will also have primary transfer numbers, and group sizes for predictions of future transfer numbers for the next 5-7 years.

If a Scrutiny Committee of an upper tier authority hasn’t considered pupil place planning in the authority recently, then I would suggest they put it on the agenda for a spring meeting, and ask for a detailed paper, even if it means going into confidential session. Not to do so, won’t make the issue go away.

Finally, why did I choose these three authorities? They are in London and South East, where there are a significant number of selective schools, and, the authorities were of a size where I could handle the data. Selective schools and falling rolls | John Howson

I might next look at three more diverse areas (The South West, West Midlands and East of England regions spring to mind).

Selective schools and falling rolls

Posted on October 7, 2026 by John Howson

Way back in history, well 2018 to be precise, I wrote a blog about selective schools during a period of rising pupil numbers. A fudge with no teeth | John Howson As the country now heads into a period of falling pupil rolls, discussed in my previous post in relation to all secondary schools, I thought that I would take a look at rolls across the selective school sector in the autumn of 2026.

The DfE uses two measures ‘capacity’ and ‘number on roll’. Capacity is defined as ‘The number of pupil places the establishment can accommodate.’ Outwood Academy Hasland Hall – GOV.UK link used as an example. In a rational system might the number on roll (NOR) be expected to be somewhere between +/- say 5% of the capacity number? In reality, in the selective school sector, currently this is not the case.

Selective schools fall into one of three groups;

within the 5% of NOR	69
NOR more than 5% below capacity	20
NOR more than 5% above capacity	74

Just over a half of selective schools are either within or below capacity, whereas 46% of these schools are more than five per cent over the DfE’s recorded capacity.

Are there any regional differences? Answering that question must acknowledge that the spread of selective schools is not even across England, with for fewer in the north and the midlands than in the south and west of England.

Region	within the 5% of NOR	NOR more than 5% below capacity	NOR more than 5% above capacity	Total	% above 5%
East of England	4	0	4	8	50%
East Midlands	7	6	3	16	19%
London	6	1	12	19	63%
North East	0	0	0	0	0
North West	12	4	3	19	16%
South East	24	4	29	57	51%
South West	5	5	10	20	50%
West Midlands	8	0	11	19	58%
Yorks & Humber	3	1	2	6	33%
Total	67	21	74	162	46%

The East Midlands has relatively few selective schools, mostly in rural areas, and most are either within or below capacity. Might this be down to transport issues, and any absence of free transport to selective schools from rural areas? Both the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber’s regions few selective schools are mostly within or below capacity. Again, might transport be an issue?

In London, the South East, South West, East of England and the West Midlands, at least half the selective schools are more than 50% over capacity, by DfE data.

London, has the highest percentage of selective school more than 50% over capacity at 63%, followed by the West Midlands at 58%. Both regions have few, if any, schools with selective school operating at more than 5% below capacity. Whether the urban nature of these regions males a difference isn’t clear, but the North West also has few schools operating below capacity.

The next piece of research is to consider the urban/rural nature of selective schools below capacity and whether the lack of free transport might be affecting these schools?

However, the big question is who will lose cash as pupil rolls fall? Will over-capacity selective schools reduce their rolls, and either stop hiring or make staff redundant or will non-selective schools have to bear all the loss of income resulting from falling rolls under the present pupil led funding system?

This is where the importance of pupil place planning becomes clear. What will a Labour government do? Favour selective schools or ensure they return to capacity?

This is an interesting question that needs airing, especially as this Labour government seem as unwilling as the last to design a secondary school system fit or all pupils.

Free bus transport to age 16: a mistake?

Posted on July 19, 2026 by John Howson

Rumours are flying around that our new Prime Minister wants to mandate free bus travel for everyone up to the age of sixteen. This would just leave those between 16 and some point in a person’s 60s paying for public transport.

Why do I question whether this policy is a mistake? Not because I think it is wrong, it isn’t, although it suffers from the same issues as any other universal benefit, by including those that could pay for the service, as well as those that benefit. Still, that issue can be dealt with through general taxation, something our previous Prime Minister never seemed to realise when creating the Winter Fuel Allowance debacle that set him on the road to the end of his premiership.

In the case of free bus travel, could this be something that Mr Burnham has looked at through the lens of an urban mayor, with little lifetime experience of rural areas?

Free bus transport should be extended to age 18, not stop at 16, in order to come into line with the official, but not statutory, learning leaving age. If David Blunkett is advising Mr Burnham, he should be pressing this case as a former distinguished Secretary of State for Education.

If Mr Burnham wants to reduce the number of NEETs, making them pay to travel to college after Year 11 won’t help his case, especially in rural areas, where there may not even be a bus service. If Mr Burnham is to be a Prime Minister for the country, and not just a Labour Prime Minster, then he must understand the needs of all young people, regardless of where they live.

I have suggested before, that 16-18 year olds in rural areas wanting to go to college, where there is no possible bus route, face a real deterrent. My advice was to remove motor Insurance tax from vehicles taxed in the name of a 16-18 year old, and for their sole use.

Mr Burnham should also make it clear how any policy about free bus travel would link to parental choice of schooling? Again, free travel in urban areas means parental choice is not an issue, but it is in rural areas, where free travel to the ‘nearest school’ has been the norm since 2014.

The small group that really needs a change in policy to align with the principle of free bus travel to 18 are those young people living in rural areas with selective schools. Kent, springs to mind, along with Essex, Buckinghamshire and Gloucestershire.

In these areas, taking the selection test for secondary school is seen as a parental choice, and doesn’t therefore qualify for free transport. This is an attack on the less well off working and living in rural areas. If Mr Burnham wants to mandate free transport for all to age 16 or, as I prefer 18, anyone living in a rural area and passing the selection test for a selective school should be provided with free transport.

Of course, Mr Burnham could be really brave, and reintroduce the 1976 Education Act, associated with the late Shirely Williams, and require all secondary schools to be non-selective, except in few isolated cases of national schools for certain talents in music, ballet and dance. Mr Blair’s government never saw the need to make that change, but, perhaps, Mr Blunkett might now have his opportunity to make the change with such a large Labour majority at Westminster.

Free transport to 16, is good, but not good enough, please, make it free transport to 18, at least to an approved education facility.

Hope over expectation: my view of today’s report on white working class children

Posted on June 29, 2026 by John Howson

How good are the recommendations into today’s report on the education of White working-class children? Based on my analysis of this one recommendation from the report; not universally very good The Inquiry into White Working Class Educational Outcomes Here is one specific recommendation:

“Government should encourage and support more deliberate action to ensure that the highest performing primary and secondary schools admit and support a fair share of disadvantaged pupils, particularly in areas with significant white working class populations. Too often, the highest performing schools within local areas serve intakes that are significantly less disadvantaged than the communities around them. This should include clearer guidance and encouragement for schools and trusts to prioritise disadvantaged pupils within existing admissions rules, alongside stronger expectations that high-performing schools demonstrate how they are contributing to inclusion and fair access locally. Local authorities should also play a stronger role in supporting fair access, admissions coordination and inclusive place planning, building on their existing statutory responsibilities in this area.”

‘more deliberate action’ – What does this mean, since it doesn’t spell out any actions? Obviously, it means support for selective schools, as they are the highest performing secondary schools, and nowhere are they mentioned, so is the report endorsing the status quo. A selective school currently seeking a new headteacher has less than 7% of its pupils on free school meals according to the DfE website.

‘admit and support a fair share of disadvantaged pupils’ – What is being recommended for school with entry tests? And what is a fair share? Similar to the balance of the catchment area? But the location of schools is often based on history rather than current place concerns?

And for non-selective schools, how do you override parental preference and faith-based requirements? Probably, through the school funding mechanism to encourage change in admissions criteria.

I would have liked to see some specific recommendations. A case study of how a successful school has already used the admissions rules would have been insightful.

‘stronger expectations that high-performing schools demonstrate how they are contributing to inclusion and fair access locally.’ Everyone knows what schools do to ‘expectations from government’.

‘Local authorities should also play a stronger role in supporting fair access, admissions coordination’ Ha, Ha, ha. It has taken two years of a Labour government to get local authorities the ability to control in-year admissions for academies and free schools (Clause 52 of 2026 Act). Will government back closure of faith schools if it is the best outcome for place planning: we shall see.

And what of transport in rural areas? At present transport to selective schools is not free in most areas outside London and the other conurbations, as it is seen as a parental choice, something I campaigned about in the 2024 general election in Weald of Kent and raised in Castle Point about schools on Canvey Island during the previous General Election.

I would have liked a much more radical approach to policy recommendations, as in the section on teachers, where a revision of the apprenticeship system is advocated. Trainees should also understand what teaching in schools in working lass areas is like. Of course, if the recommendation above is actioned, some schools will look very different, as some might lose successful pupils to selective schools and be even less educationally comprehensive. Will teachers want to teach in such schools without more incentives?

Sadly, with an Education Act passed in the last session of parliament, even a new Prime Minister may find it difficult to fsecure time for more reforms, so what will happen will probably only be within the current rules and framework.

I wonder what changes we will see by the end of this parliament: I am not holding my breath, at least for the secondary school sector. In the Early Years field, I am much more hopeful because there is an acceptance that closing chidrens’ centres a decade ago was not a wise policy move.

Still, any report that puts these issues back on the table for a little while and creates discussion cannot be all bad.

What’s in a name?

Posted on April 2, 2026 by John Howson

I was recently surprised to find that a school called John Spence Community High School in North Shields was in really an academy. I am sure the school serves its community, but I wondered how common is it for schools that are academies to use the term ‘community in their name? Well, there is Barnhill Community High School in Hillingdon, part of the Middlesex Learning Trust – itself a name that represent little more than the name of a county council abolished in the 1960s. There is also the Abbeywood Community School’ part of the Olympus Academy Trust in the Bristol area.

So, it seems that is not uncommon for schools to retain their existing name when converting to an academy. Other confusing names for schools that might catch out unwary parents, and even employers reading references include – grammar schools that aren’t selective schools – Enfield Grammar school springs to mind, but it is not alone. Indeed, Enfield is also the home of Enfield County School, located in Enfield that was once part of the county of Middlesex, and a selective school for girls while a Middlesex County Council School. Again, it is not the only school to retain the term ‘county’ in its name. At least the ‘county’ schools in Essex and Surrey can at present claim to be part of a county. Post-local government reorganisation means that they will eventually join Enfield and Edmonton County Schools as representing areas that no longer exist in any local government sense.

High School is another meaningless term for a school. Such schools can be 11-16 or 11-18, selective or comprehensive, depending on where they are located. Even more confusing to anyone moving to the Derby area could be Risley Lower Grammar CE (VC) Primary School. What on earth is a ‘lower grammar school’? Like First school, lower schools are usually school taking pupils up to the ages of eight or nine, when they are not the used to describe a site for the first few year groups of a secondary school, or even, in the case of The Basildon Lower Academy in Essex, a school for pupils in Years 7-9.

If school types are confusing, then hopefully one can assume that all schools named after saints are church schools. Sadly, no. One of my favourite exceptions is a primary school in Watford. The school’s prospectus tell parents how the school acquired its name as follows:

“St Meryl School was built in 1951 and is situated on a large attractive site in a central position within Carpenders Park. The name of the school, St Meryl, does not indicate any affiliation with a particular religion or religious denomination; in fact, “Meryl” was the name of the builder’s wife!” st-meryl-school-prospectus-2025-2026.pdf

I made use of this idea when naming he school in my recent play about falling rolls.

However, it is now the name of schools that worries me most, but that the term ‘teacher’ is not a reserved occupation term like ‘engineer’ or ‘accountant’. Anyone can call themselves a teacher, regardless of whether they have any qualifications.

To me that is an insult to the many thousands of teachers that gave gained QTS, often at great personal expense. There is still time to insert a clause in the Bill before parliament to remedy this oversight and grant legal status for qualified teachers.

Reform of Home to School Transport needed

Posted on July 4, 2025 by John Howson

This week the Local Government Association published an important report into home to school transport The future of Home to School Transport: Report | Local Government Association This is an area of responsibility that always concerned me when I was a county councillor, as the rules of the governing eligibility were set in the 1944 Education Act, in a very different era to that of today.

As the LGA report noted:

“Effective home to school transport plays a vital role in our education system. Fundamentally, it is the safety-net that ensures no child or young person misses out on their entitlement to education because they cannot otherwise get to school. However, current home to transport duties were designed for a different age, societally, educationally and economically. For local government, continuing to fulfil the current statutory responsibilities for home to school transport is becoming increasingly financially unsustainable, posing a real threat of bankruptcy for some, and necessitating cuts to other vital aspects of children’s services provision in many more.”

Much of the report deals with SEND transport, as that costs local authorities the most money, the issue of whether the NHS should bear part of the cost. Sensibly the report concluded that this was a national issue:

“We would recommend that, in the context of budgetary pressures across public services and with health being under no less pressure than local government, this is not an issue that can be left to local negotiation to resolve. The Department for Education and the Department for Health and Social Care should clarify an equitable split of responsibilities, including financial responsibilities, for transport for children with the most common health needs that require substantial and additional support, and set that out in statutory guidance both for local authorities and ICBs.”

With the review of the NHS currently underway, this seems like a timely recommendation.

Surprisingly, the report seems in places to assume that parents must send their child to a state school, rather that state schools being the default position if a parent doesn’t make any other arrangement for their child’s education. Fortunately, this assumption doesn’t affect their arguments.

I think their conclusions are sensible in both being clearer, with less change of challenge than at present, but the authors appear to have missed the opportunity to discuss how to deal with the issue of selective schools and distance. Making such schools ineligible for home to school transport as they are regarded as a parental choice is as discriminatory as any other criteria. It is a pity this wasn’t addressed more fully.

Nevertheless, I think I can agree with their conclusions for a system that:

“In summary, we are advocating that in future children and young people should be eligible for assistance with home to school travel from the start of reception to the end of year 13, based on a simple binary distance criterion: if they live more than 3 miles away (by the most direct road route) from their nearest suitable school then they would be eligible for transport assistance; if they live less than three miles away then they would not be eligible for transport assistance. This formulation of eligibility would get rid of the current link between eligibility and the ability to walk to school for both children and young people with SEND and those accessing mainstream home to school transport.”

Need for new drive on apprenticeships at 18?

Posted on July 26, 2023 by John Howson

Should Labour be focusing more on the challenges within the state school system rather than trumpeting its desire to remove some benefits from private schools? One such challenge is around the chance of a pupil in a non-selective secondary school in an area identified by the DfE as a ‘highly selective area of or secondary schooling’ progressing to a sustained Level 4 or higher qualification from school or college. Level 4 and above qualifications include, undergraduate degrees (a Level 6 qualification); apprenticeship at level 4 or higher; or any other qualification at Level 4 or 5.

The DfE definition of non-selective schools in highly selective area includes all non-selective schools in local authorities with a high level of selection (where 25% or more of state-funded secondary places are in state-funded selective schools). These local authorities are Bexley, Buckinghamshire, Kent, Lincolnshire, Medway, Poole, Slough, Southend-on-Sea, Sutton, Torbay, Trafford and Wirral.

There are selective schools in other areas, but they don’t past this test, such as parts of Essex, Enfield and Birmingham.

The table below is taken from Progression to higher education or training, Academic year 2020/21 – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK (explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk) has been sorted to rank institutions by their outcomes for the type of institution in terms of a sustained Level 4 or above destination. (6 months in a two year period.) The two year period ended just after the covid pandemic started in the spring of 2020, so that may have had some effect on the outcomes.

However, the FE colleges produce the bulk of young people entering the workforce or becoming a NEET (Not in employment, education or training) at the end of Year 13.

Kenneth Baker’s experiment with 14-18 schools, whether studio schools or University Technical Colleges, as a sector produce slightly better outcomes in terms of destinations, but not by much. Slightly ahead of this group is the non-selective schools in highly selective areas, most of which were once known as secondary modern schools.

Institution type	Sustained a level 4 or higher destination	Progression score *
Other FE sector colleges	47.0	-3.1
Total Mainstream Colleges	54.9	-1.2
Studio Schools	55.6	1.2
University Technical College	59.3	1.6
Non-selective school in highly selective area	62.0	-4.0
Total Schools and colleges	66.0	0.0
Sponsored academy	69.4	1.1
Sixth form colleges	73.1	3.4
Other non-selective school	73.5	1.0
Total academies & free schools	74.6	0.7
Total Schools	74.6	0.9
LA maintained schools	74.9	1.9
Converter academy	75.7	0.4
Free 16-19	77.0	3.7
Free Schools	83.1	7.1
Selective school	88.5	2.4

Source: Progression to higher education or training, Academic year 2020/21

Interestingly, Six Form Colleges, academies and free schools as a sector and other non-selective schools had very similar outcomes. Converter academies and the relatively small Free School sector do better than the average for schools, but, as might be expected, it is selective schools that have the highest ranking. Indeed, one might ask why their score isn’t even higher?

For parents aspiring to see their offspring continue in education after eighteen, there are some clear messages in terms of outcome by institution. For political parties espousing the concept of either levelling up or equality of opportunity the question of the value to society as a whole of selective schools probably ought to be at least as important as concerns about the benefits of private education, since it is state funding that is producing the range of outcomes.

My guess is that because of the current teacher supply crisis the next set of data post-covid will have seen the range become even greater than in this study.

* For an understanding of the progression score please consult the DfE documentation where there is a detailed explanation of how the score is calculated.

Home to School transport

Posted on February 22, 2023 by John Howson

What level of transport from home to school should the State provide for parents? At present, this is an area of policy that rarely seems to be reviewed. For instance, when the learning leaving age was raised to eighteen, the rules on free transport to school were not changed. As a result, many pupils that receive free transport up to age sixteen, and the end of Year 11, no longer qualify for free transport in Years 12 or 13, even if they remain at the same school.

Yes, some local authorities do pay for SEND transport for post-16 students, but it is not a requirement to do so. TfL still provide generous free transport for young people resident in London, although the Elizabeth Line beyond West Drayton to Reading isn’t included.

The question must be: if young people in London can qualify for free bus and tram travel, why must those living elsewhere in England depend upon local rules set by the upper tier local authority? The answer, of course, is that local authorities must fund the home to school transport budget, and it needs to compete against all other priorities, whereas in London, the transport authority, TfL, foots the bill for transport costs.

Most authorities now only pay for transport over three miles (2 miles for pupils under eight, but above statutory school age) to the nearest school if selected first at the time of the admissions process. There may be different rules for selective secondary schools, and some authorities won’t pay for travel to these schools if located in the area of another authority despite the fact that most are now academies.

For instance, Essex County Council and Castle Point Unitary Authority state that:

Grammar (selective) school

Children from low income families qualify for school transport if they live 2 or more miles from the selective school.

School transport will also be provided if the selective school is closer than the nearest maintained school or academy and 3 miles or more away. School transport: Who qualifies for home to school transport – Essex County Council

This means that many parents have to pay to send a child to a selective school unless they qualify as a low-income family.

In rural areas there may not be bus services, and local authorities will only pay where a road is deemed unsafe due to traffic. Any alternative route less than three miles, even if an unlit footpath across fields, often doesn’t qualify for free transport unless an appeal panel is willing to go outside the rules.

In their 2023-24 budget, Oxfordshire has a figure of around £30 million for home to school transport, so it isn’t an insignificant issue for rural counties. The bulk of this was for transporting pupils to mainstream schools and not for SEND transport.

So here are some policy suggestions for discussion

Raise the current age level for transport to the same school from 16 to 18
Ensure SEND transport to both schools and colleges
Negotiate student fares with both bus and train operators as similar rates for same journey
Merge school transport with active travel policies to encourage car pooling or use of local community transport
Pay bike vouchers to encourage cycling to school
Review national guidelines on what constitutes ‘safe routes’ to exclude footpaths or bridleways for inclusion and only include roads
Create a national policy for travel to selective schools funded by central government as these schools are no longer ’local’ schools
Prevent state schools from running their own buses
Ensure any child offered a paid for place has the place available for a whole school year.
Amend the mileage rule to cover all sites for split site schools

The present distance rules were set many years ago. Is it still acceptable in this modern age to use a three-mile limit or should it be reduced?

Finally, how should any changes be paid for? Should there be a national scheme, as for the bus pass for the elderly, and should the rules be more favourable for London than for rural areas, especially where house prices may be more expensive in the rural areas than in London, and salaries don’t take this into account?

Please sue the comments section to discuss.

That was The Week That was…

Posted on July 10, 2022 by John Howson

This was an interesting week to have been away from one’s desk. Three Secretaries of State in a week! That’s one for the record books, along with so much else that has happened in Westminster politics during the past seven days.

How much will education feature in the debate over the selection of the next Prime Minister? Will some education journalist ask the obvious questions such as:

If you are going to cut taxes, what will happen to funding for schools, especially in the period before inflation is brought under control?

What are you going to do about the present teacher shortage?

Will you review the way that the apprenticeship Levy operates so that it isn’t a tax on small primary schools?

How important is helping young people recover from the effects of the covid pandemic and what would you do to help boost their mental health?

Do you believe in local democratic control of schooling?

What are you plans for levelling up as it affects the Roma and Traveller communities across England?

Was the EBacc a mistake?

How important do you see the youth Service and other out of school activities?

Will you offer Free School Meals to all primary school children for free?

I am sure that readers can add to this list with this with their own priorities. I am also pretty certain that most of these questions won’t be asked of the candidates.

Education, and schooling in particular doesn’t often feature in either leadership or general election campaigns. It is possible that there could be a debate about selective education, started by one of the candidates, as it is a topic that appeals to the older generation of Tory voters even if most younger Tories have never experienced it, unless they come from parts of the Home Counties. Faced with rising private school fees, some Tories might also see selective state education as a tax cut for parents no longer needing to pay school fees.

And on fees, where will the candidates stand on higher education, university fees and student numbers? It will be especially interesting to see what the Chancellor says as a former Education Secretary.

Talking of former Education Secretary’s, I wonder whether there was time to take the Ministerial photograph of Michelle Donelan to hang on the wall at Sanctuary Buildings or whether they will use one taken in her previous Ministerial role in the department.

Finally, there is the future of the Schools Bill to consider. This mess of a piece of draft legislation was mauled in the House of Lords and is being reconsidered. The oversight and regulation of academy trusts is an important addition to the legislation on schooling, but I hope that the new team will also listen to their councillors about the importance of both place in the governance of schooling and the need for democratic local accountability. Local Authorities will not accept the need for responsibility without involvement in decision-making and that matters for admissions, pupil place planning and SEND.

John Howson

Education and the numbers that affect what happens

Tag Archives: selective schools