Tag Archives: teaching

My 2016 post on Geopolitics and macroeconomics

Posted on by
Reply

Sometimes it is worth re-posting something I have written before on this blog rather than writing a new post. Recently, I wrote about my thoughts about how education, and schools in particular might be affected by the current global war. In 2016, well before the AI revolution, I wrote a wider-ranging piece about macroeconomics and geopolitics that also considered advancements in technology, without actually referencing AI. I thought it worth re-publishing the post that first appeared on:

So here it is in full and unedited.

Whether the world is a more dangerous place this January isn’t for me to say. However, to balance my short-term views about teacher supply problems I thought it worth thinking about what the combined effects of a downturn in China; tensions in the Middle East; falling oil prices and the possibility of rising interest rates might do to the longer-term teacher supply position.

An analysis of data over the past fifty years suggests teacher supply problems ease when the economy is subdued or in recession. Whether there is a direct link between these two facts may be arguable, but while there is a need to educate children there will be a need for teachers. Again, over the past fifty years, there have been massive strides in technology since the famous BBC programme of the late 1970s ‘The chips are down’ about the microprocessor revolution. Classrooms have adapted to make use of the new technology, but there has been no seismic shift away from traditional patterns of pupil teacher numbers. Indeed, in secondary schools over the past decade, pupil-teacher ratios have even improved, according to DfE data.

The recently reported growth in home schooling may be the first signs of a coming revolution, driven by parents no longer satisfied with the current model of schooling. Tablets, TVs and computers can provide more learning power than any school library of a couple of decades ago. What is needed is the means of instruction and the method of motivation to keep youngsters on task. How much more likely is that in a home environment than when youngsters are faced with the distractions caused by 25 or 30 other children: could learning me more focused and take less time in the home than the classroom?

No doubt, parents would still want children to socialise in order to learn team games, sing together and undertake risky science experiments under the control of a qualified person. However, that might mean only sending your child to school for a couple of days a week. Such a shift might also boost the market for tutors as parents just buy in specific skills where their offspring are facing issues with learning.

As the BBC recently highlighted, the spirit of enterprise is abroad in Britain at the present time. I am sure that there are many developers in both large companies and small start-ups eying what could be a lucrative market that has world-wide potential; some of which will be on display at BETT.

Such a shift in technology from a labour intensive to a technology driven learning process could have a profound effect on both the need for teachers and the spending by the State on education. However, in the short-term, the geopolitical and macroeconomic signals might suggest that if a downturn is coming then teaching might benefit from renewed interest as a career choice.

As I have said at several conferences recently, I am one of the only people that might see benefits from a slowdown in China, even if it only reduces the inflow to that country of UK teachers to work in the growing international school market.

However, with the allocations for 2016 entry into teacher preparation courses set and fewer places available on non-EBacc subjects than in 2015, none of this will matter before 2017 unless, as in 2009, any downturn in the world’s economy bring back greater numbers of returners into teaching: such an effect could dramatically alter the picture of teacher supply, even for 2016, were it to come about.

Demand for SEND places

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, I wrote about the forecast decline in primary and secondary school places. In the past, less attention has been paid to the need for places for pupils with SEND. However, possibly as a result of the rapid growth in EHCPs, and hence the demand for specialist provision, the DfE has started trying to forecast what it has termed ‘the Local authority pupil forecasts for ‘Local authority specialist provision for pupils’.

This exercise was always going to be something of a challenge since it is taking place against falling pupil numbers, especially in the primary sector, but increasing demand for EHCPs. However, if demand for EHCPs continues to increase, it won’t necessarily mean a demand for more special school places, because some of the increased demand is likely to be met by specialist provision within schools as ‘specialist bases’ are created, often using the spare capacity arising from falling rolls.

At present the DfE data shows that the current stock of special schools is operating at over-capacity by some 10,000 places. At the top of a demographic cycle, such pressure would not be surprising, as schools often take ‘bulge’ classes for a couple of years using temporary buildings rather than built new schools that might not be needed as rolls fall. Whether that is the correct approach in the present circumstances for the special school sector is unclear from the DfE’s data published yesterday. School capacity in England: academic year 2024 to 2025 – GOV.UK

An analysis of local authority data around provision of specialist provision for the period up to the end of the decade reveals large differences across the country in projected need. At one end of the spectrum, three local authorities are projecting grow of in excess of 1,200 places each in the primary sector. At the other end of the spectrum, twenty-four authorities are predicting a reduction in need, with one ‘Reform’ led county predicating a need for 500 fewer places. Interestingly, the adjacent unitary authority is predicting an increase of over 100 places.

Oxfordshire, whose primary and secondary place forecasts were discussed in my previous post is predicting only a very small increase in the number of primary places.

These significant differences don’t seem to be related to either the underlying pupil population or the trend in pupil numbers in the primary sector. This raises issues about how reliable the current forecasting around the demand for SEND places is for policy-makers. Accurate data are important, because of the cost of provision in the SEND sector.

Data on provision of places are also important in helping identify workforce needs. It seems odd that the DfE doesn’t seem to have a unit that brings together trends in pupil numbers and the demand for both places and people to educate the projected school population.

If the DfE did have such a unit then it might look at the costs of small sixth forms and of central overheads by different MATs. It might also look at the issue of small primary schools, and how they might be protected in rural areas, but possibly amalgamated in urban areas. Is a one-from of entry school viable in London?

Hopefully, the data published yesterday will create some debate around the important, but often overlooked, issue of pupil place planning, and the future shape of schooling in the modern age.

School building boom is over

Posted on by
Reply

The DfE has published its latest estimates of school capacity for 2024/25, together with estimates for places needed up to 2029/30 School capacity in England: academic year 2024 to 2025 – GOV.UK

There are two sets of numbers. One looks at both need and places available and calculates what might be regarded as a raw score. This looks at all spare places, regardless of location within the authority and measures that number against expected additional need. The second set just looks at additional need.

During the period between 2025/26 and 2029/30, most additional need is likely to come from changes in the housing stock, with little, if any, growth from the increase in the number of pupils in the relevant age groups. As a result, most local authorities show either no need for additional primary places or only small increases in numbers. Wandsworth is the only Inner London borough with any additional need for primary school places during the period 2025/26 and 2029/30.

The table balancing existing places with additional need shows only a handful of local authorities with a reduction in the spare capacity in the primary sector between 2025/26 and 2029/30. For most authorities, the spare place problem is expected to be worse in 2029/30 than it is in 2025/26

net spare places
OxfordshirePrimarySecondary
2025/26-11,052-6,321
2026/27-11,557-6,449
2027/28-13,117-6,959
2028/29-13,865-7,143
2029/30-14,601-7,336
Change-3,549-1,015

The table shows the estimates for Oxfordshire. Several factors could mean these data are not going to be accurate. In recent years, Oxfordshire has seen significant housebuilding, and if the construction of new housing continues, and attracts families from outside the county, then the spare places may be an overestimate.

Oxfordshire is also home to several military bases for both the army and the RAF. Although defence planning has projected the closure of some of the army bases, the current defence review and increased spending on defence might either slowdown or reverse the closure of some of the bases. If closures slow down, then this might mean pupil numbers don’t fall as expected.

The problem for both the local authority, the dioceses and the academy trusts is that Oxfordshire has many small primary schools located in villages. Often the school is the only facility left in the community. The present funding formula that is heavily biased towards pupil numbers poses a potential problem for small schools. Academy trusts can ‘vire’ funds between schools to help such schools through any temporary downturn in pupil numbers. At present local authorities do not have this ability: they should be given the power to support small village schools in the same way as MATs can.

However, as with many other rural areas, school closures look likely over the next few years if schools are not to run up deficit budgets. Such deficits would be paid off by depriving future pupils of some of their funding. With education spending likely to be squeezed to accommodate the increase in defence spending, and a greater proportion of the school funding going toward SEND pupils, there may well be some hard decisions to make.

With declining interest in established faiths, how will the dioceses react to falling rolls, if their schools are no longer viable?

One certainty is that if any school closures require additional free transport to the next nearest school, the current£20 million Oxfordshire council tax payers contribute to fund mainstream school transport will not be enough, even if fuel and other costs remain stable.

Local government reorganisation may offer a way out for politicians in areas such as Oxfordshire, but politicians in urban areas, and especially in London will not be so lucky. Time to dust off my review of falling rolls in Haringey in the 1970,s and the lessons to be learnt from those battles.

ITT: What the poster doesn’t say

Posted on by
Reply

I saw several of these posters on York railway station this weekend.

The station seems like a good place to advertise, as York has a large number of university students passing through the station, but I hope the course organisers managed to negotiate a good deal, given the number of posters I saw in and around the station.

I thought the poster lacked a ‘call to action’. Just adding a QR code isn’t enough for me. Why not an arrow to the QR code with ‘click here for more details?’ As it is, the QR code is just sitting there, not doing much.

If I saw the poster, as a possible teacher, two things I might want to know, but are not told, are ‘how much does the training cost’ and ‘will I be guaranteed a job if I am successful?’

I guess the answers to both questions might be so off-putting as to be sensible to leave off the poster. However, as this was York, the starting salary and some idea of what top salaries in teaching are these days might have been a pull factor.

The DfE is currently spending money – not sure how much – promoting their vacancy website as the place to go to for teaching jobs. Might they also want to create a generic poster for railways stations in other university towns to encourage graduates to think about teaching as a career, rather that leaving it ITT providers to do so?

Finally, I am now sure about the strap line of ‘inspiring tomorrow’s teachers today’. It is certainly a catchy phrase, but it doesn’t do much for me.

While in York, this past weekend, I summated one of the amendments to the Lib Dem conference motion on tuition fees. The amendment called for student debt forgiveness for those that work in the public sector for ten years. In my speech, I also suggested the idea of Tuition Fee credits for student on Free School Meals for the whole of their secondary school career.

Sadly, I didn’t have time to remind conference that between 1997 and 2010, graduates training to be a teacher on programmes such as those run by Exchange Teacher Training had their tuition paid by the government. Personally, I believe that both trainee teachers and medics should have their fees for post first degree study paid by the government or at least repaid as soon as they start work in state-funded locations. After all, we pay army offices during their training, why not teachers and medics?

Fine the accountants

Posted on by
Reply

Both stand-alone academies and Multi Academy Trusts use private sector accountants to audit their accounts.  Each year, a number of MATs and academies are tardy in publishing their accounts at Companies House, where anyone can view the school or MATs handling of public money.

In my experience, it is the same MATs and schools that keep everyone waiting each year and this delay prevents any useful analysis of how schools are using their funds in particular geographical areas.

As usual, I am still waiting to see the accounts for seven sets of accounts for the schools in the geographical area where I track all non-community schools. These missing accounts are mostly the accounts from the same set of schools that were slow in appearing last year and the year before.

I think it is high time that the DfE, now responsibly directly for the funding of academies after the closure of the EFSA, takes some action to ensure all accounts, save those where there are legitimate queries, are posted by the end of January each year. That’s five months after the end of the accounting year, and should provide sufficient time for all accounts to be prepared.

How to deal with those accountants that don’t file by the required date: fine them. The notion of fining for late delivery of documents is well known and accepted. After all, HMRC will happily fine anyone not delivering their tax return by the due date, so why not fine private sector accountants for not filing these accounts on time.

The consequences would be that either the fine was passed on to the school or MAT or the accountants declined to continue handling the accounts in future years. Either way, the fine should help to instal financial discipline in those schools in the non-community part of the state school sector that are either being ignoring or possibly even flaunted the deadlines at present.

With the recent White Paper once again raising the spectre of all schools becoming academies – one wonders how foundation Schools view that prospect – installing financial discipline from day one should be something the National Audit Office needs to confirm with the DfE is not just a nice thing to have, but a necessity. The NAO might well decide to qualify the DfE’s accounts if it cannot see the accounts for all directly funded state schools within the prescribed time frame.

In my next post, I will consider how salaries for the top earners in MATs within one area have changed between the 2024 and 2025 accounts. With secondary schools now regularly advertising their headship with a starting salary of more than £100,000, and some on even more than £150,000, it is important to know whether Chief Executives of MATs, and executive headteachers are now regularly earning more than the Directors’ of Children’s Service in local authorities.

I guess that they are also earning more than the civil servants that have the ultimate power over the school sector. One wonders what should be the multiple between the salary of the lowest full-time worker in a school and the headteacher? In many case, it cases the multiple is now more than a factor of ten, between the lowest and highest paid staff members in a school: is this too great a gap?

The war: bad news for schools?

Posted on by
Reply

The longer the current conflict, centred around Iran, continues, the more anxiety there must be within the DfE. After all, the DfE is the second largest spending department, after spending on the NHS and Social Care. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) ranks as the third largest spending department.

Recent trends within the DfE have included increased expenditure on special needs, and post 16 schemes to reduce the number of NEETS. I assume there is also monitoring the implications of falling rolls in the school sector under way.

I guess that there might have been some hope that one trend – more spending on SEND – might be balanced by less spending on the core school grant as a result of falling rolls. By abolishing a separate High Needs Block, the additional SEND spending could disappear into the core grant, leaving schools to sort out the mess on the ground.

This is not the post to discuss the relationship between DfE and NHS spending on SEND, and how the 2014 Act, unless amended, could be used by parents to hobble school’s discretion on how they meet the education requirements of pupils with EHCPs, especially if the Tribunal Service remains as it currently is. Suffice to say, there will become a point where SEND funding starts to impact on the rest of the DfE’s budget that is, if the total spend doesn’t increase.

Digression aside, my main concern is the extent to which increased spending on defence could hit the DfE’s budget? Spending on schools’ accounts for the lion’s share of the DfE’s budget, and I cannot see how it can remain unaffected as spending on the MoD increases, as it now inevitably will do, however short-lived the current war is.

There are also pressures from within the school system as a result of the White Paper’s non-SEND initiatives to be taken into account. I don’t know whether anyone has worked out the full cost of every school becoming an academy. But replacing 150 with 160+ local authorities after local government reorganisation, with perhaps ten times than number of academy trusts won’t come cheap.

Using civil servants to administer the system will be more expensive than using local government officers. One only has to look at the £38mn it cost to run the EFSA, and the £14mn it costs to run the Teacher Regulation Agency to wonder whether anyone in Whitehall has done the maths on full academisation of schools?

However, it is the military situation that must be the real concern for schools. Let’s assume that going forward the MoD needs an extra £15bn per year in expenditure in order to meet is 5% target of government expenditure: possibly even more if conscription is again on the agenda, after being through ruled out during the 2024 election campaign.

Increase defence spending, and unless the government has spare revenue to play with, and it seems likely that other budgets will be hit. Ring fence SEND spending, and what might be the consequences?

As staffing is the biggest item in any school’s budget, in the end any further slowdown in spending may well leave schools facing a choice between cutting low paid non-teaching staff or high paid teachers, burdened with student loan debt.

So, what might we see.

MATs closing schools that cost more to run than they bring in from funding steams and ‘unofficial’ parent support. At present, any transport costs will be incurred by local authorities, so that won’t deter closures.

Schools axing courses that cost more to run than the share of pupil funding they generate. On the wider scale, this might affect small sixth forms. After all, these are often staffed by the most expensive teachers, and can be a financial drain on the resources for Key Stages 3 and 4.

Will MATs be more ruthless than local authorities when it comes to closing small sixth forms, because they have no councillors worried about re-election demanding a school retain its sixth from? This is likely to be a real issue for Reform in the south of England where 11-18 schools are the norm. If Reform want a return to selective schools that also will come at a price.

If SEND spending is ring-fenced, and demand for EHCPs for mental health issues continues to grow, at some point it will eat into the funding for other pupils. At what point will there be a pushback?

Of course, a quick war, and peace in the Middle East, plus a less bellicose Russia, might mean there will be no threat to funding for schools. And government income might rise to cover the extra spending. Who knows, but it is better to hope for the best, and plan for the worst.

If I use Pupi Teacher Ratios as a measure of what might happen, then the unwinding of the benefits of the peace dividend since the late 1990s might have a more profound effect on the primary school sector than on secondary schools, although my guess is that neither sector will be unaffected. (PDF) PTRS OVER TIME: A REVIEW OF PUPIL TEACHER RATIOS BETWEEN 1974 AND 2024 AND TWO PERIODS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RE-ORGANISATION PTRS OVER TIME: A REVIEW OF PUPIL TEACHER RATIOS

The other interesting question is what will happened to salaries, and how far the outcome of national salary discussions will fetter schools spending choices? Perhaps one for another blog to discuss in more detail.

Attendance and Behaviour Hubs: a DfE initiative

Posted on by
Reply

One of the government initiatives that I have just caught up with is the one around attendance and behaviour hubs. The DfE announcement in December when the programme was announced said that:

The regional improvement for standards and excellence (RISE) attendance and behaviour hubs programme is a national initiative designed to support schools in improving pupil attendance and behaviour.

Led by schools with strong practice, it aims to:

  • support school leaders to reflect on current systems
  • share effective practice
  • implement changes

It is aimed at senior leaders with responsibility for attendance and behaviour who are seeking to strengthen their school’s leadership, culture and systems. RISE attendance and behaviour hubs programme – GOV.UK

Yesterday, the DfE updated the list of lead schools, so I took a look at these schools in the South East Region.  Today’s list has five primary and five secondary schools as lead hubs.

The secondary schools are located in:

West Sussex

Milton Keynes

Medway

Slough

Portsmouth

Two of these schools are non-selective schools in a location with selective schools; four schools are under-subscribed, with the fifth school having 1150 pupils against a roll of 1058, and it is a faith school.

The five primary schools are located in

Kent – 2

East Sussex

West Sussex

Medway

All have at rolls of at least 400 pupils, although three of the schools are nowhere near their capacity.

How these schools will spread good practice across the region from Milton Keynes to the Isle of Wight and from Oxfordshire to Bracknell Forest will be an interesting challenge.

One option not open to them will be the device used in the Durham coalfield in the 19th century and recorded on the noticeboard of the school now housed in the Beamish Living Museum.

The notice reads

The following notice has been received from Mr Chatt, on behalf of the Education Committee: –

“Those schools whose average attendance for the preceding month has reached 92% may grant a half-holiday on the first Friday of the month.”

Looking at the DfE’s data for Oxfordshire, the average attendance from September 2025 to start of February 2026 was 95.1% for primary schools; 91.5% for secondary schools and 88.8% for special schools.

On the basis of that data some primary schools would have qualified for the half-day in at least one month. Possibly some secondary schools might have done so as well.

However, it is worth remembering that the schools receiving the notice were Elementary Schools, taking pupils from 5 to 13 or 14, depending upon the school leaving age at the time of undated message. Attendance by the older pupils was probably as much of a challenge in the 19th century as it is today; albeit for different reasons.

Time to review funding for trainee teachers

Posted on by
Reply

It has been interesting to watch the current debate about higher education, and the level of debt incurred by students studying for a degree. Throughout the recent debate, I don’t think I have seen any reference to the 2019 Auger Committee report Independent panel report to the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding set up by Theresa May when she was Prime Minster. Interestingly, I wrote a blog about the report after it was published, and you can read it here. Lower Fees: a threat to teacher education? | John Howson

My major concern at the time, back in 2019, was the Committee’s recommendation to reduce tuition fees to a maximum of £7,500 per year, and what that reduction might do to the funding of teacher preparation courses.

The recent debate about higher education funding has been around repayment levels and student debt, and Auger had a great deal to say about both that issue and the balance between the needs of the individual and the funding of higher education by the State. Suffice to say, the Committee ducked the issue of RPI versus CPI – leaving the decision to the Treasury. Had they had a crystal ball about the future direction of inflation, one wonders whether they might have been more assertive for a change?

However, their recommendation that interest not be calculated during a period of study, although the principal amount of the loan should still be increased in real terms, in order to reflect inflation, would have helped reduce repayments.

The recommendation of a cap on repayments would also have been useful in making clear how much the State would recover. However, the Committee did recognise that the system favoured well-paid graduates, as the sooner the loan was paid off, the lower the interest charges incurred.

As the Committee noted on page 174 of their Report.

“In the words of the Treasury Select Committee Report into student loans: “…the civil servant, the teacher and the accountant pay broadly similar amounts for their loan, but a graduate joining a “magic circle” law firm pays less, owing to rapid pay growth in the early stages of their career.”  House of Commons Treasury Committee (2018) Student Loans: Seventh Report of Session 2017-19, p15.

Regular readers will know that I have always maintained that making many, but not all, trainee teachers incur a fourth year of student debt, not required of other public servants has been a mistake, and a drag on recruitment into teaching and thus a damper on the economy of the country, as too many pupils fail to fulfil their full potential when taught by less than fully qualified teachers in certain subjects.

For several months now, I have been advocating the return of a bursary for trainee music teachers, to help stem the falling recruitment in that subject.

Realistically, I believe all teacher preparation courses should be debt-free. I also endorse Auguer’s recommendation that student debt should not carry interest payments while a person is studying an approved course.

The present debate about student funding will have alerted many would-be teachers to the fact that they will be paying interest on their loans while training to be a teacher, and also paying interest on the student loans for their teacher preparation courses. With starting salaries for teachers above the threshold for repayments, teaching doesn’t look like a worthwhile investment, and many are still not signing up to become teachers.

I would urge the government to look into the current funding model for trainee teachers, and to make it a level playing field for all, with no new debt, and no additional interest on undergraduate loans while studying to be a teacher.

Challenging schools still find keeping a headteacher challenging

Posted on by
Reply

Alongside the White Paper, published today by the DfE, The DfE also released a document entitled Schools, school workforce and pupils statistical analysis 2026 Schools, school workforce and pupils statistical analysis 2026

Within this document, I was interested to see a discussion of headteacher turnover by Pupil Premium Decline. This showed that for both primary and secondary schools, but especially for secondary schools, turnover of headteachers was more likely where Pupil Premium levels were higher. Thus, in Band 1, – most deprived – 8.7% of secondary school headteachers changed between November 2024 and November 2025. This compared with just 2.3% of headteacher vacancies in secondary schools in Band 10. The data was taken from the DfE’s own database of teacher records and the School Workforce census.

Readers of my post of yesterday, won’t be surprised by this piece of research Headteacher: recruitment bonus – good value or not? | John Howson

Interestingly, in September 2002, the then NCSL (National College for School Leadership) published a piece of research on headteacher turnover that I conducted for the College. ‘Staying Power: the relationship between headteachers’ length of service and PANDA grades. (PANDA grades were a measure of a school’s performance and schools were graded from A* to E*).

My research looked at secondary schools with either A* or A grades and compared them with schools with E* or E grades.

The research was based upon an analysis of vacancy advertisements for headteacher posts at these schools.

As with today’s research finding, in 2002, A* schools had the greatest percentage of headteachers with more than six years of service, and E* schools the smallest percentage of headteachers with more than six years f service at that school. There were 785 A*/A schools and 780 E*/E schools in the survey.

There was also an association between the PANDA grade and readvertisement rates. 8% of A* vacancies for a headteacher were re-advertised compared with 14% of E* headteacher vacancies, and 49% of schools rated as E.

As headteachers often move from headship into retirement, the age profile of the teaching profession is a factor affecting turnover. A younger profession means fewer headteachers reaching retirement age.

However, the thesis that the more challenging the school, the shorter the term of office of a headteachers, still seems as credible today as it was half a century ago. Whether the government’s policies as foreshadowed in the White Paper will help to change this pattern of turnover and length of service will be interesting to watch.

Schools: the end of local authority involvement?

Posted on by
Reply

When I first started studying the governance of education, way back in 1979, there at that time two popular saying about the school system in England. One was that it was, ‘a partnership between local and national governments’ and the other that it was ‘a national system locally administered.’ A typical examination question was to ask how valid either of these statements were?

That was half a century ago; difficult for me to believe, but true nevertheless. I have witnessed a lot of changes during in the intervening years. Indeed, one of my few academic articles I have published was entitled ‘Variations in local authority provision of education’ and appeared in the Oxford Review of Education way back in the early 1980s. Interestingly, during the Labour government of the period between 1974-79, closing the gap in funding between the best and worst local authorities was a matter of academic interest. Anyone wanting to know more could do worse than read’ Depriving the Deprived’, written by Tunley, Travers and Platt, published in 1979, as it is about the funding of schooling across one London borough over one year.

For a comparison over a longer time period, my review of 50 years of pupil teacher ratios, published last summer and available for download on researchgate at (PDF) PTRS OVER TIME: A REVIEW OF PUPIL TEACHER RATIOS BETWEEN 1974 AND 2024 AND TWO PERIODS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RE-ORGANISATION PTRS OVER TIME: A REVIEW OF PUPIL TEACHER RATIOS

During the 50 years between local government reorganisation in 1974 and 2024, school funding decisions have been removed from local authorities, and nationalised; Education Committees have been abolished, in favour of cabinet government; teacher training and new schemes to prepare teachers have been taken over by Westminster; schools have been persuaded to become academies outwith local authority control, but still under church control if faith schools – if the white Paper leaks are correct all schools will now have to become an academy or free school; further and higher education were liberated from local authority oversight and funding in the early 1990s; ultimate control over place planning has remained with the DfE as only the DfE can sanction new schools being built.

What’s left for local authorities? SEND for a couple more years; admissions- including in-year admissions once the current Bill becomes law – and transport. Frankly, I cannot see local authorities, especially newly reorgnised upper tier authorities, wanting either of these functions in the future. And why would they, as these services can often be poisoned chalices.

So, are we moving to an NHS style system for schooling in England, with little local democratic oversight, and few routes for parents to complain about the education their child is receiving. I fear so.

Does it matter? That’s a matter of opinion. The world of 2026 is vastly different to that of sixty years ago, and it should be easier to produce a more level playing field with all the levers of funding and control being exercise from Westminster.

But I remain sceptical. Westminster has been unable to control issues such as MAT chief executive’s pay and the level of school reserves. At present it isn’t equipped to be a fully functioning operational department along the lines of the NHS of MoD.  It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the White Paper has to say about governance when it is published tomorrow.