newsletter summer term 2018 · newsletter summer term 2018 an overview of key issues for governing...
TRANSCRIPT
NEWSLETTER SUMMER
TERM 2018
An overview of key issues for Governing Boards to consider and
review over the Summer Term 2018.
Funding Issues
A new report by the Education Policy Institute examines the latest trends in Local Authority maintained
school balances, assessing whether all schools will be able to meet cost pressures over the next two
years, following recent funding reforms by the Government. This new analysis, School funding pressures
in England, builds on EPI research undertaken last year on the implications of the Government’s National
Funding Formula for schools and changes in real per pupil spending. Whilst the report can be accessed
in full here, key report findings include:
• Assessing the state of school balances for LA maintained schools (1,136 secondaries, 13,404
primaries) over the last seven years, the EPI found that a number of schools have been struggling
financially and are now in deficit.
• The percentage of LA maintained secondary schools in deficit reduced from 14.3% in 2010/11 to
8.8% in 2013/14. However, over the four-year period to 2016/17, the proportion of LA secondary
schools in deficit nearly trebled, expanding to over a quarter (26.1%) of all such schools. The average
LA maintained secondary school deficit rose over this seven-year period, from £292,822 in 2010/11
to £374,990 in 2016/17.
• The percentage of LA maintained primary schools in deficit has also risen. In 2010/11, 5.2% of LA
primary schools were in deficit; this increased to 7.1% in 2016/17. The average primary school deficit
also increased, from £72K in 2010/11 to £108K in 2016/17.
• At a regional level, the South West had the highest percentage of LA maintained secondaries in
deficit over this period, 34.9% in 2016/17 (22.1% in 2010/11). The East had the lowest at 17.5% in
2016/17.
• The North East had the highest number of LA maintained primary schools in deficit in 2016/17 at
10.1%. The East of England consistently had the lowest, with 3.4% in 2016/17.
• A large proportion of LA maintained schools are now spending more than their income: over two-
thirds of secondary schools spent more than their income in 2016/17. Significantly, such events are
not just occurring for one year. The EPI found that 40% of LA maintained secondaries have had
balances in decline for at least two years in a row.
• Similar figures can be found for primary schools. In 2016/17, over 60% were spending more than
their income with a quarter of LA maintained primaries have had a falling balance for two years or
more.
The EPI also examined the financial impact of the annual 1% pay settlement for school staff:
• Funding allocated by the Government through its new National Funding Formula for schools fails
to meet pressures on school budgets produced by this cost alone. This is despite the announcement
of an extra £1.3Bn of funding by the Government in July 2017.
Page 2 of 22
• As many as 40% (around 7,500 schools) are unlikely to receive enough additional government
funding in 2018/19 to meet these pay pressures alone. For 2019/20, this proportion rises to nearly
half of state-funded mainstream schools in England (around 9,000 schools).
• Schools are facing a variety of cost pressures, yet this EPI analysis highlights just how many schools
are struggling from just this staffing cost alone. With the potential for the annual staffing pay
increase to exceed the current 1% uplift, these cost pressures will increase further.
• For a significant proportion of schools in England, being able to meet the cost of annual staff pay
increases from a combination of Government funding and their own reserves looks highly unlikely,
even in the short term.
• In response to pressures, schools have undertaken various efficiency measures to deliver cost
savings, such as switching suppliers, reducing energy usage and reducing the size of leadership
teams. That said, education staff account for the majority of spending by schools. It is likely that
schools will find it difficult to achieve the scale of savings necessary without also cutting back on
staff. Many schools will face the challenge of containing budget pressures and reducing staffing
numbers without impacting on education standards.
March 2018 also saw the publication of the Academies Benchmarking Report 2018 by the Kreston UK
Charities and Education Group, a network of independent accounting and business advisory firms. The
report analyses the findings of a survey of over 600 academies in England and reveals “worrying trends”
in the financial health of the academy sector. Whilst the full report can be accessed here the key
findings within the report include:
• A significant 55% of Trusts show an in-year deficit before depreciation for the year ended 31 August
2017, up from 42% in 2016 (and 21% in 2015). When the combined picture is considered, the size
of the deficits significantly exceeds the surpluses. If the position after depreciation is considered,
then nearly 80% of Trusts would record deficits.
• Trusts within the research survey had a combined net deficit for the year of over £100M, yet their
combined reserves only total £240m. Therefore, it would only take two more similar years to leave
the entire sector on the verge of insolvency.
• Many MATs/Trusts supported by the Charity and Education Group have already made tough
decisions about staff numbers, the breadth of curricula, the number of school trips offered yet these
have not been sufficient to reverse financial decline.
• In 2016/17, 350 MAT trusts shared £30M from the Regional Academy Growth Fund (RAGF). This
funding was to assist MATs to build capacity and to help other converting/transferring academies.
• In many cases the payments from the RAGF were dwarfed by negotiated ESFA settlements which
were paid to MATs to take on failing schools. Given the financial pressure the sector is experiencing,
it is no surprise that some MATs are requesting significant additional grants to cover the risk of
assisting these poorly performing schools. The report quotes one instance where a MAT was
concerned about the redundancy risks of a joining school and requested well in excess of £0.5M to
ensure it did not impact on the rest of the Trust.
• Some MATs clearly feel they have developed a strong negotiating position, which may be because
of the difficulty the ESFA is having finding homes for some financially weak academies. Following a
Freedom of Information request by the Times Educational Supplement, it was identified that of 155
directive academy orders issued last year, 42 academies had yet to be allocated to a MAT. It is the
researchers’ opinion that financial reasons was a key driver behind this.
• The research group points to the ESFA being open to other methods of taking on failing academies,
quoting one instance where a MAT has been allowed to set up a separate company into which the
Page 3 of 22
failing academy was transferred. This helps to ring fence the financial risks associated with the
specific academy so that it will not adversely impact on the rest of the MAT. This flexible approach
from the ESFA may be needed going forward to allocate other academies in severe financial distress
to existing MATs.
• Staff costs have remained steady at 72% of total costs, but there is increasing cost pressure due to
the shortage of teachers and increasing pensions and benefits. Very few schools have been
successful at generating additional income: only 10% of trusts were generating any significant
amounts of non-educational income, and the prime determinant of this is the size, location and
condition of the estate that the Trusts have inherited.
• The extra £1.3Bn announced by the Government in July 2017 to ensure there would be a per pupil
cash increase in respect of every school will simply maintain funding per pupil in real-terms.
• The researchers reported a wide range of different methods used by MATs for central service
charges, including top slicing, charges per pupil, charging for the time spent on each school, and a
flat charge per month. Based on survey results, top slicing is by far and away the most popular
method, but within that there is a wide range of percentages used and methodology. Some MATs
charge a fixed percentage of GAG income, some charge a percentage of all income, and some
charge different percentages to different schools.
The report finds that whilst school leaders have already taken many difficult decisions in order to balance
their budgets, these steps have not reversed the trend of financial decline across the sector. The report
finishes by stating that, given its clients are saying there is no evidence that the funding situation has
improved, it is hard to draw any other conclusion than the sector will run out of money fairly quickly
and will need further support from the Government.
New Funding for the Arts
£96M of new funding to support talented music, drama and dance pupils realise their potential and
kick-start a career in the arts has just been announced by the School Standards Minister, Nick Gibb. This
funding is in addition to the £150M already announced for Music Education Hubs in 2018-20 which will
help them to support pupils to explore music further, regardless of their background.
Music, art and design, drama and dance are compulsory in all maintained schools from the age of 5 to
14. Almost half of all pupils chose to take at least one arts GCSE last year through subjects such as music,
dance, drama or art and design.
The money will give pupils across the country access to a range of cultural opportunities including:
• Training at the Royal Ballet School in London;
• Film-making classes at the BFI Film Academy;
• Free opportunities to study art and design at their local college or university; and
• Visits to museums and galleries, using quality resources to support their classroom teaching.
There has also been a further boost for the ‘In Harmony’ projects in Liverpool, Lambeth, Newcastle-
upon-Tyne, Nottingham, Leeds, Telford and Stoke-on-Trent. All will receive a share of £1M to help them
continue to provide music education for disadvantaged pupils in their area.
Breakfast Clubs
Page 4 of 22
The DfE recently announced that it will spend up to £26M on running breakfast clubs in disadvantaged
areas, including the DfE’s opportunity areas. Run by two appointed charities, Family Action and Magic
Breakfast, over 1,770 schools are expected to benefit, with the funds being provided by the
Government’s soft drinks industry levy.
This initiative is part of the Government’s overall drive to support an active and healthy childhood
through the Childhood Obesity Plan. It builds on the doubling of the Primary PE and Sport Premium to
£320M a year alongside the £100M Healthy Pupils Fund to help young people live healthier lifestyles.
Free School Meals
The Government has finally confirmed how it plans to assess eligibility for free school meals under
Universal Credit, awarding them to families on Universal Credit with annual net earnings of under £7,400.
Analysis published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and funded by the Office of the Children’s
Commissioner, found:
• Around 50,000 more children would be eligible under the new system, when fully rolled out. This
equates to around 1.3M children on free school meals by 2022 or an increase of 4%. However, this
overall increase hides that:
o About 210,000 children who would not have qualified for FSMs under the legacy system
will gain entitlement under Universal Credit;
o About 160,000 children who would have qualified under the legacy system will find
themselves ineligible under Universal Credit;
o The number of children with at least one parent in paid work who will be eligible for FSMs
will increase by around 140,000. 90,000 children in workless families will lose eligibility for
FSMs, largely because their parents have unearned income or assets that disqualify them
from Universal Credit;
o About two-thirds of the children entitled to FSMs are in the lowest-income fifth of
households with children. This will remain essentially unchanged after the switch to
Universal Credit. However, under the new system, as is the case under the legacy system
being replaced, only c.half of children in the poorest fifth will be entitled to FSMs.
The Government is planning to freeze the £7,400 net earnings threshold in cash terms until 2021/22. If
it instead increased this threshold with inflation or earnings, approximately 100,000 more children would
be entitled to FSMs in 2021/22 than under the current plan. This highlights the significance of the
decision about how to uprate (or not uprate) this threshold beyond 2021/22: a decision yet to be made.
News from Ofsted
Inspection Time Frame Updates
The Easter break saw Ofsted finalise a small number of updates to its section 8 and section 5 inspection
handbooks, which have now been published. These updates bring some changes to the inspection time
frame; effective immediately, Ofsted will be:
• Extending the usual timeframe within which Good schools receive a short inspection from c.3 to 4
years. The maximum period within which Ofsted would return to a school remains the statutory five
years from the end of the academic year of the previous inspection; and
Page 5 of 22
• Aligning the re-inspection window for Requires Improvement, Serious Weakness and Special
Measures schools to up to 30 months (from 30, 18, and 24 months, respectively).
By making these changes, Ofsted will be providing its Regional Directors with greater discretion about
the date of re-inspection. This will allow them to take into account the circumstances and progress of
the schools in question.
Regular monitoring of Requires Improvement and Inadequate schools will continue as it is now with
Ofsted’s usual risk assessment processes remaining in place. Regional Directors have a clear
understanding of how schools in their areas are performing. If a school needs to be inspected more
urgently or given more time to consolidate improvement, then Ofsted will still retain the flexibility to do
so at the discretion of the Regional Director.
Sean Harford, the National Director of Education, made clear in his blog that Ofsted is not changing its
expectation about the time it should take schools to come out of Special Measures or Serious
Weaknesses. Ofsted will judge those schools that are in a category of concern but which taking effective
action to improve to be ready for removal from their category of concern within the established 18- to
24-month period.
What’s an Inspection Judgement based upon?
In a March 2018 Ofsted blog, Sean Harford stated that if schools came away from their Ofsted inspection
believing that Ofsted is only interested in data, then something had gone wrong. Ofsted’s National
Director of Education clarified that Ofsted’s inspectors look at many different areas of a school’s work,
most importantly whether the quality of education is good and that the pupils are well prepared for
their next stage of education, training or employment.
Sean Harford again reiterated the issue of some schools curtailing Key Stage 3 and making pupils
choose their options early, often dropping subjects in order to focus on preparing for GCSE exams.
Whilst acknowledging the importance of results, Sean Harford made reference to “extended jumping
through assessment objective hoops” as being a “slog for pupils and teachers”.
Sean Harford also dismissed the belief that the school’s performance, in terms of exam and test results,
will predict its Ofsted rating, arguing that is this was the case, then a significant 90% of schools would
not be Good or Outstanding. Instead, Inspectors consider how well schools reflect on and act on their
strengths and weaknesses with Inspectors directly observing work within classrooms. Inspectors will ask
pupils and parents what they think about their school, also talking to the head, senior leaders and staff.
Whilst data is considered, Sean Harford argues that it does not “tell the whole story”. Inspectors will
look at the school’s culture and how it makes an impact on the pupils’ development and learning.
The key issue, in the National Director’s opinion, is that if the school believes that Inspectors are not
getting a true and complete picture of the school during its inspection, it is vital that you raise this at
the time. Ofsted’s interrogation of the data informs inspectors of one part of the impact that the school’s
teaching is having on children’s’ lives. The inspection is the school’s opportunity to show Ofsted the rest
and for Inspectors to develop a more rounded picture of the school.
That said, Sean Harford was also keen to stress that the vast majority of Ofsted inspections run smoothly
and without any problems. If a school does raise a concern, the Inspectors should record it and any
evidence and actions taken. The Lead Inspector should make sure that the leadership team understand
Page 6 of 22
how to make a formal complaint, where necessary, with a complaint submitted no more than ten days
after the report is published.
Ofsted Chief Inspector’s Speech
Amanda Spielman recently spoke at the Association of School and College Leaders’ annual conference.
Key issues considered included:
• Reference to Ofsted’s shift in focus back to the “substance of education”. At the 2017 ASCL
conference, the Chief Inspector asked how we make sure our efforts are directed at giving young
people a knowledge-rich education that sets them up to succeed, as opposed to hunting for
performance table prizes.
• Acknowledging that whilst not everyone had agreed with Ofsted’s conclusions from its year-long
research programme, she stated that there was almost universal agreement that the essential
diagnosis is right. For too long, the curriculum – the thing that should lie at the heart of educational
thinking – has come second to the pressures of accountability and performance tables. The Chief
Inspector acknowledged that Ofsted had played its part here, not placing enough emphasis on the
curriculum in the Inspection Framework, thereby potentially contributing to a “vicious cycle”,
whereby schools have done the same.
• That said, Ms Spielman clarified that Progress 8 and new SATs, GCSEs and A-Levels are broadly
good things. But she did maintain that success in these measures should flow from a rich curriculum,
rather than tests of all kinds and performance tables dictating the curriculum itself.
• The Chief Inspector considered how Ofsted can play its part in reducing workload, so that schools
are able to focus on the things that matter to them and their pupils. She recognised that the record
number of good and outstanding schools will not be sustained if the people, who make them run
so well, are burning out, and leaving the profession.
• Ms Spielman expressed her dismay that so many NQTs end up losing their early enthusiasm because
of the pressures of the job, pressures that she regarded as “entirely unnecessary”: endless data cuts,
triple marking, 10-page lesson plans, and, worst of all, mocksteds.
• The Chief Inspector referred to five major drivers of workload:
o Government policies and requirements, which schools and teachers must follow;
o Accountability through performance tables and inspection;
o The consequences of accountability – what governing boards, LAs, MATs or RSCs do as a
result of an Ofsted judgement or a set of results;
o The fear of litigation if schools do not take a belt and braces approach, particularly on things
like health and safety; and
o How policies and accountability measures are translated by school leaders into day-to-day
management tools such as policies for planning, assessment and marking.
• Ms Spielman clarified that Ofsted do not want to see a performance on inspection. Ofsted did not
Page 7 of 22
want anything special to be created or “Ofsted-ready files” produced. And, above all, Ofsted did
not want schools to employ consultants to perform mocksteds. What Ofsted wanted to see on
inspection is an accurate reflection of what happens in your school. Ofsted did want to see how
schools approach assessment, it did want to see good teaching and Ofsted did absolutely want to
be sure that leadership is effective. But inspectors want to see all of that just as schools approach it
day-to-day, not as a special presentation for Ofsted.
• The Chief Inspector recognised that inspections will always to some degree induce anxiety as
schools want to give the best account of their work. But she clarified that as most inspections are
now for just a day, that stress shouldn’t build up for weeks and months before an Ofsted inspection.
• Ms Spielman referenced a myth that most teachers still think Ofsted have a preferred style of
teaching with significant minorities believing inspectors will still grade individual lessons or want to
see lesson plans.
• Reference was made to Ofsted’s attempt to make sure the inspection process was as painless as
possible, stating that since January 2018 Ofsted had been running a new model for short inspections
of good schools. Early feedback from these inspections has been very positive.
• Underpinning Ofsted’s new approach is its belief that it is better to catch a school before it falls,
than to give it an immediate Requires Improvement judgement. The new model gives those with a
few areas of weakness time to improve, before Ofsted returns for a full inspection. In the meantime,
there should be no confusion: a school’s ‘Good’ judgement remains and schools avoid the
consequences that can flow from an RI grade.
• In a similar vein, Ofsted have removed the 3 strikes rule. There was a presumption that a school
should be graded inadequate, if after two RI outcomes a third inspection did not show that it had
improved to good. Instead, we are letting our inspectors use their discretion to judge a school as it
stands, regardless of its inspection history.
• Ofsted are also adopting a new approach to safeguarding. In training its inspectors this year, Ofsted
have moved away from a compliance approach. Instead, Ofsted wants its inspectors to look at
whether a good safeguarding culture runs throughout the school. Fewer tick boxes, more focus on
how schools identify risks of serious harm and help young people to be safe.
• Ofsted have also stopped reporting on performance management arrangements. Inspectors are not
requesting anonymised lists of teachers who did or didn’t achieve an increment on the pay scale.
• With regards to data, whilst stating that evidence-based approaches to education are the right
approaches, the Chief Inspector clarified that Inspectors should need, or want, to see endless pages
of data, cut to the nth degree on 10 different pupil characteristics.
• It is Ofsted’s intention to always to use data as the starting point, not the end point, for inspection.
Ofsted have redesigned inspection data reports to reduce the likelihood of over-interpretation and
have trained its inspectors to know what inferences they can and cannot draw from the data
Page 8 of 22
• Ofsted have also adopted more direct measures looking at workload. In September 2017, a new
question was added to Ofsted’s staff questionnaire: whether ‘Leaders and managers take workload
into account when developing and implementing new policies and procedures, so as to avoid
placing unnecessary burdens on staff’. The Chief Inspector shared the first results from that question
- only 8% of staff disagreed or disagreed strongly with 77% agreeing or agreeing strongly that
leaders do take workload into account.
• That said, the Chief Inspector recognised the “inevitable bias” to the positive in this question, stating
that few people will want to jeopardise their school’s inspection. Thus, Ofsted are looking at how
this question can be best used, using the responses as part of the discussion with leaders about the
way they run their schools.
• Reference was also mad to the new education inspection framework that Ofsted is developing for
2019. Ms Spielman outlined her top priority as making sure that the new framework explores the
things that either give a good judgement of educational effectiveness or are vital to young people’s
development.
• The Chief Inspector referred to some of the issues that have been suggested, over the past year, for
inclusion in the new Ofsted framework:
o volunteering
o gang education
o school meal quality
o swimming capability
o home cooking skills
o first aid
o school to school collaboration
o knife awareness
o resilience
o democratic engagement
The development of the new inspection framework is supported by Ofsted’s research programme, which
currently includes:
o the curriculum survey, which is helping Ofsted to define what a good curriculum looks like,
in terms of intent, and implementation and impact;
o international research on lesson observation, and what can and cannot be gleaned from it;
o a review of book scrutiny practice and what it can and cannot tell inspectors about
standards in a school;
o broader work on the validity and reliability of Ofsted’s inspections and the link with
educational effectiveness; and, in response to feedback from teachers
o a research programme on workload and well-being, focused on schools that manage this
well.
Watch this space!
Page 9 of 22
Other Ofsted Blogs
A HMI takes readers through the process that he would adopt when undertaking a one day, Section 8
Inspection. The relevant blog can be accessed here
Assessment Updates
New measure for fairer recording of primary school performance
The School Standards Minister, Nick Gibb, has announced that assessments to measure the progress
pupils make from the very start of primary school will be, following an open procurement exercise,
designed and delivered by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER).
The Reception Baseline Assessment (“RBA”) will be administered as a twenty-minute, teacher-recorded
assessment of children’s communication, language, literacy and early mathematics skills. It will cover
material that many children will already be familiar with and pupils will not have to prepare for it, either
at home or in school. The RBA will replace the statutory Key Stage 1 tests.
It is argued that the activity-based assessment will enable better and fairer measures of primary school
performance by capturing the progress teachers help pupils to make from the first weeks of reception
all the way through to the end of year 6. Current progress measures are based on data from the end of
KS1 which does not reflect the work schools undertake with pupils in reception, year 1 and year 2.
Ahead of the assessment being rolled out to all schools by the end of 2020, the NFER will, subject to
final contracts, work closely with teachers across the country to ensure the check is age-appropriate for
reception year pupils. It will not be used to judge, label or track individual pupils. Nick Gibb has
encouraged teachers and headteachers to work with NFER through the trials and pilot to make sure the
assessment and measures are right.
The new assessment is intended to be a cohort level measure, rather than an individual pupil measure.
The introduction of the RBA, which is supported, in principle, by the National Association of
Headteachers and the Association of School and College Leaders, follows an extensive public
consultation and is part of wider changes to the primary assessment system which focus on pupil
progress, mastering literacy and numeracy, and scrapping unnecessary workload for teachers.
As well as announcing the new RBA, the DfE has also confirmed that:
• When the baseline is fully established, KS1 assessments will become non-statutory;
• From 2027, reception to Key Stage 2 progress measures will be published for all-through primary
schools, but not for those with a different age range;
• First and infant schools will continue not to have progress measures published. These schools will
continue to be responsible for demonstrating the progress their pupils have made to Ofsted; and
• Middle and junior schools will be in a similar position to first and infant schools with responsibility
for evidencing progress based on their own assessment information.
Page 10 of 22
The Inspection Data Summary Reports (IDSR)
Ofsted issued guidance in March 2018 on how its Inspection Data Summary Reports for primary and
secondary schools could be used and how the charts/information in the reports could be interpreted.
The IDSR is a tool showing historical data for previous cohorts which inspectors will use when preparing
for inspections. The IDSR contains data for context, trends over time, progress and attainment,
highlighting data for the disadvantaged group. The report presents progress data from the main starting
points. IDSRs have been produced for all schools that have data and have an ASP summary report.
Schools’ IDSRs will be updated following each Analyse School Performance (ASP) release. The current
IDSR shows 2017 amended data for both primary and secondary schools.
Averages and percentages for small cohorts are more affected by the performance of individual pupils.
In order to inform areas to investigate on inspection, inspectors should look at:
• How cohorts have performed across time to see if there has been a consistent trend.
• The distribution of scores within a cohort, using the scatterplots in the IDSR. This includes identifying
whether all pupils in the cohort were above or below similar pupils nationally.
The guidance highlights that no one data measure should lead to an overall judgement; these will inform
areas to investigate on inspection. Therefore, single measures, particularly in the context of small
cohorts, should only be commented on in the context of a range of measures and information.
The guidance is keen to underline that during an Ofsted inspection, inspectors will give most weight to
the outcomes, attendance and behaviour of pupils currently in the school, but also taking into account
historical data.
Whilst data is shown for special school, due to the varied outcomes of pupils in special schools,
percentile rank information has not been calculated. Therefore, special schools do not have a trend page
or shading on progress pages.
The IDSR guidance can be accessed here
Ofsted also published further guidance on how the ‘Areas to investigate’ on the front page of the IDSR
are generated. The areas to investigate give an indication of areas of attainment and progress in a school
that may require further investigation on inspection. They highlight significant differences from other
schools, across subjects and starting points. All areas to investigate are based on the latest three years
of data. It is possible that there will be no areas to investigate flagged for a school.
This guidance can be accessed here
Page 11 of 22
General Data Protection Regulations
The DfE has provided some updated guidance on GDPR compliance for schools in a recently released
short video, which can be accessed here. The DfE representative in the video considers:
• the need for schools to clearly map out their “data ecosystems”, looking at their
o core management information systems
o curriculum tools
o payment systems
o virtual learning environments
o catering management
o safeguarding
o communication tools i.e. how the school communicates with its parents
o school transport and trips
o uniforms
o school photos
o identity management, where appropriate i.e. the use of biometric information
o office documents
o the core IT infrastructure
• the need for schools to understand who they send their information onto
o the Local Authority
o Multi-Academy Trusts, if part of a MAT framework
o the DfE itself
o health and social care representatives
• as well as the personal data held by schools on their pupils, and parents, schools will also need to
have due regard for their workforce – both their current and former employees as well as current
job applicants who are mid-process.
• once the school’s “data ecosystem” has been clearly mapped out, the DfE believes there are six key
questions, which schools need to understand the answers to, in order to demonstrate their
compliance with GDPR:
o Scope – which personal and special data (i.e. religion, ethnicity) items are contained within
that data ecosystem?
o Sharing – does any personal data flow from the school’s system to anywhere else?
o Retention – what is the system’s data retention policy? Does it align to the data retention
policies needed to fulfil your duties as a school and is this clear within your contract with
the supplier?
o Access – how would you extract the information needed for a Subject Access Request from
the system?
o Security – how does the system ensure the security of the personal data held?
o Own readiness – is the system supplier confident that they will be GDPR compliant by May
2018? How will they demonstrate this compliance to you?
• the DfE representative also stressed the need to understand the risks involved with the data
ecosystem, specifically, checking for software that was not on the SLT’s radar i.e. subject specific
software. Schools have been advised to involve all staff in developing and checking their data
ecosystem maps.
Page 12 of 22
Under GDPR regulation, public authorities, including all state schools, must appoint a designated Data
Protection Officer (DPO). The aforementioned DfE video also looks at the issues schools should consider
when appointing their DPO:
• The DPO needs to be highly knowledgeable about data protection and GDPR, needing to
understand the school’s operations and policies.
• Part of the DPO’s role will include promoting a strong culture of data protection, needing to
understand the compliance, obligations, processing and conducting of internal audits, as well as the
promotion of appropriate training.
• The DPO must be able to report directly to the board and be able to conduct data protection impact
assessments.
• The DPO should be separate to those responsible for data processing or technology decisions. The
role of the Head of IT or the headteacher was specifically highlighted as generating “slight” conflict
of interest.
So, who can schools appoint as their Data Protection Officer? A number of suggestions were offered in
the DfE video:
• Responsibilities could be realigned within the school, enabling an internal DPO appointment to be
made.
• The DPO role could be shared between a group of schools.
• Expertise could be shared by enacting the DPO role in each other’s school.
• Schools could buy in DPO expertise, either for their individual or group of schools.
The DfE representative also suggests the possibility of seeking suitably knowledgeable volunteers to
undertake the DPO role. However, a volunteer DPO will have the same statutory responsibilities as a
paid DPO, requiring a significant commitment in a volunteering context. It should also be noted that
the DfE refer to volunteer in a generic sense, not referencing governors specifically. The role of the
governing board is strategic, whereas the role of the DPO is very much operational. Even if a member
of the Governing Board was sufficiently qualified to undertake the DPO role, this would need to be seen
as being an entirely separate role, conducted not as a governor but on a pro bono basis.
Further updates are expected from the DfE with regards to GDPR in an educational context.
Pupil Nationality Data Collection
Privacy campaigners claim that the DfE is to drop the requirement for schools in England to collect data
about pupils' nationality. Introduced in 2016, the DfE argued that the information collected would only
be used for educational purposes, such as tracking the progress of pupils from different backgrounds.
The Against Borders for Children protest group had warned however, that the information could be
used to check on the immigration status of pupils.
Whilst the DfE has yet to confirm reports of this policy change, a recent report in Schools Week states
that schools will be told in the next few weeks they no longer have to collect the data. Watch this space!
Page 13 of 22
Academy Updates
Letters to Trust Chairs
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the School System, Lord Agnew, wrote to the Chairs of
all Academy Trusts in March 2018, recognising the important work they do for young people’s
education. He emphasised that trusts that are performing well should not see frequent interventions
from the DfE, other than to ask them to share their effective practice with the DfE and others.
Issues considered in the letter included:
• As Chairs, the Trust’s financial health and sustainability is key with Lord Agnew emphasising the
priority that he attaches to the responsibility Chairs and their boards have to ensure that their
executive teams manage their budgets effectively and deliver the best value for money. This is
particularly important when looking at the pay of the Senior Leadership Team, especially the
Accounting Officer.
• Lord Agnew expressed his concern that not all boards are being rigorous enough on this issue.
CEO and senior pay should reflect the improvements they make to schools’ performance and
how effectively they run their Trusts. He would not expect the pay of a CEO or other non-
teaching staff to increase faster than the pay award for teachers. Indeed, it was Lord Agnew’s
view that we should see a reduction in CEO pay where educational performance of the schools
in the Trust declines over several years.
• The need to scrutinise any related party transactions, ensuring a full and proper procurement
process is followed and that the Trust is able to demonstrate the services provided are at cost.
• Trust Chairs were also urged to ensure that budgets are managed to deliver value for money.
Reference is made to the national deals available on items schools purchased regularly, such as
energy and printers. Lord Agnew highlighted that through the use of these national deals, the
associated savings can be significant.
• The role of the Chair in reducing teacher workload by only collecting the necessary information
and the role of the DfE in only asking for “information that is necessary for public
accountability”.
• Ensuring that trust governance contacts are up to date in order to facilitate an open dialogue
between the DfE and the Trust.
• The Regional Schools Commissioners and the ESFA are being encouraged to involve Chairs and
other trustees in discussions affecting their schools. Having a direct relationship with the RSCs,
including during annual MAT reviews, will enable Chairs to talk about the performance of your
academies and your strategic direction.
The Chief Executive of the ESFA, Eileen Milner, has also recently written to the Chairs of all Academy
Trusts in England who, according to their 2015/16 financial accounts, paid two or more salaries between
£100K and £150K, asking them to justify these salaries with a clear rationale. The letter stresses that in
paying multiple salaries at this level, they are stepping outside of the approach taken by the majority of
trusts.
Within the letter Trust Chairs were reminded of their responsibility for ensuring that these salaries
represent value for money, and that the salaries are “proportionate, reasonable and justifiable”. The
letter also reinforces the requirement set out in the Academies Financial Handbook that the Trust Board
Page 14 of 22
must ensure that their decisions about executive pay levels follow a robust evidence-based process and
are reflective of the individual’s role and responsibilities.
The ESFA highlights that it would expect the Trust’s remuneration committee to minute its rationale for
awarding any salaries within £100-£150K per annum, distinguishing between teaching and non-
teaching staff. It should also show that it has scrutinised and approved all other emoluments such as
the member of staff’s eligibility to participate in the Teachers’ Pension Scheme, travel, accommodation,
bonuses, notice periods and holiday entitlement. The Chief Executive further emphasises that the people
in receipt of higher salaries are generally the Accounting Officer and Senior Leadership Team. This
therefore increases the need for robust governance and independent scrutiny by the non-executive
board members to ensure that a salary of this level is appropriate. As a rule, the ESFA would expect pay
rises for non-teaching staff to mirror, not exceed, those awarded to teaching staff.
Further information is requested by the ESFA by the 27th April 2018. This includes an overview of the
roles in question, length of contract and information within the trusts' pay policy which shows a clear
commitment to transparency and value for money.
The full letter can be accessed here
Academy Budget Returns
The deadline for Academy Trusts to submit their 2018 Budget Forecast Return Outturn (BFRO) is Monday
21st May 2018. The BFRO collects financial outturn information as at the end of March 2018 (seven
months actual information, five months forecast information). The ESFA will, in turn, use the information
provided to ensure that the academy sector accurately reports its financial data to the Treasury.
The deadline for Trusts to submit their Budget Forecast Return (BFR) is Monday 30th July 2018. Currently,
for the annual BFR collection exercise held in July, Academy Trusts are asked to forecast one year ahead.
From this year’s return onwards, Trusts will be asked to provide a forecast for three future years. This
extended forecast data will enable the ESFA to better assess the academy sector’s financial health and
will support the vitally important financial planning by Trusts.
The ESFA will include a simplified, high-level 3-year forecast table within the 2018 BFR. The table will
include selective income and expenditure rows, with some capital lines and non-cash elements. The first
year will be populated by information already completed elsewhere within the form, with the
subsequent two years to be added by the Academy Trust. Whilst this inevitably creates additional work
for Trusts, the ESFA anticipates that in most cases the data required will be readily available from Trusts’
own internal plans.
The updated BFR form is expected to go live in June 2018.
Value for money underpinning Academy Conversions
The National Audit Office (NAO) has recently published a new report on the conversion of maintained
schools to academy status in England. The report estimates that the conversion of almost 7,000 schools
has cost roughly £745M since 2010/11. While most have been high performing schools that have
converted of their own volition, there have been conversion delays for some underperforming schools.
The NAO estimates that the challenges around the conversion of schools to academy status are likely
Page 15 of 22
to increase in the future, with many small primary schools still maintained and variable capacity among
trusts in different parts of the country.
The NAO’s report recommends that the DfE should:
• articulate its vision for the school system now that it is not expecting all schools to convert to
academy status by 2022;
• apply stronger tests of financial risks and due diligence to all academies, ensuring that all trustees
and senior leaders are “fit and proper persons”;
• in conjunction with the ESFA, should improve the sharing of information and expertise;
• speed up the conversion of Inadequate schools, which is taking more than nine months in two-
thirds of cases; and
• improve its understanding of why trusts might choose not to take on more schools and use this to
develop capacity in areas of need.
The NAO report can be accessed in full here
Complaints about Academy’s Independent Admission Appeal Panels
A factsheet was recently issued by the ESFA, highlighting the types of complaints parents / legal
guardians can raise with the ESFA regarding independent admission appeal panels for academies.
The factsheet makes clear that the ESFA is only able to investigate complaints about panels that did not
follow the procedures set out in the School Admission Appeals Code 2012. Quoted examples include:
• the panel did not take relevant information into account when reaching its decision, or it took
irrelevant information into account;
• the admission appeal decision letter parents received following the panel hearing did not give clear
reasons for the decision;
• parents were not given an opportunity to state their case without unreasonable interruption; and
• the panel was not set up or run in accordance with the Appeals Code.
The ESFA makes clear that where it finds that something went wrong, which could have affected the
panel’s decision, it will recommend that the academy reviews its appeal procedures and ask the academy
to hold a fresh appeal with a different panel.
The ESFA also makes clear that it cannot consider an appeal complaint if it was held more than six
months ago, unless there is a good reason for the complaint being delayed. The ESFA also states that it
cannot overturn the panel’s decision; an appeals panel is independent, and decisions can only be
challenged in court through a judicial review, for which independent legal advice should be sought.
Page 16 of 22
Model Funding Agreements
The end of March saw the DfE publish updated Model Funding Agreements for single academy trusts
and academies operating within a MAT framework. The updates to the model agreements reflect recent
legislative changes, the inclusion of a new land clause and provide additional clarity on existing clauses.
When converting to academy status, schools are expected to adopt the model Funding Agreements
without amendment, unless a significant case can be made for not doing so. The Funding Agreement is
the contractual agreement underpinning the relationship between the academy and the Secretary of
State for Education.
Condition Improvement Fund
The ESFA has now published the outcome for its Condition Improvement Fund allocation in 2018/19.
The CIF will provide £514M of funding for 1,556 projects at 1,299 academies and sixth-form colleges
which will help expand and improve buildings and facilities. The funding includes £38M in specific
projects supported by the Healthy Pupils Capital Fund (HPCF) to help improve children and young
people’s physical and mental health by increasing and improving access to and the use of relevant
facilities i.e. changing rooms, playgrounds, kitchens and sports halls. This specific portion of the funding
has been raised in part from the levy on the soft drinks industry.
Congratulations to our six academies in Croydon and twenty-five in Bromley who were successful in
being awarded funding for their academy specific projects.
Ofsted Ratings
By the end of December 2017, 88.9% of all academies in the SESL region are now either rated as Good
or Outstanding, an improvement from the 86.4% achieved at the end of December 2016. Furthermore,
the percentage of underperforming academies also continues to fall with now only 3.8% academies
identified as being of concern (either below government floor standards or judged inadequate at an
Ofsted inspection).
Additional Updates
New School Website Launched
The Education and Inspections Act 2006 places a duty on the Governing Boards of maintained schools
to promote wellbeing which is defined in the Children Act 2004 as relating to:
• physical and mental health and emotional wellbeing;
• protection from harm and neglect;
• education, training and recreation;
• the contribution children make to society; and
• social and economic wellbeing.
‘Mentally Healthy Schools’ is a newly launched free website which includes evidence-based practical
resources to improve awareness, knowledge and confidence in promoting and supporting pupils’
Page 17 of 22
mental health. The website is a legacy project of the Heads Together mental health campaign with
charity partners including the Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families, Place2be and
Young Minds.
The website is currently tailored to the primary school curriculum, but the learning and feedback
received during the pilot phase will inform the development and roll out of the site to schools across
the UK.
As well as offering a range of information to help tackle stigma, raise awareness, and provide help for
children and young people with mental health challenges, the website also features a section on the
key role of Governing Boards.
Governors should support senior management to:
• Review and develop the existing school vision, goals, strategies and improvement plan to ensure
that child and staff mental health and wellbeing represents an integral part of strategic and
operational practice;
• Share the initial vision for school mental health and wellbeing and build upon it through
consultation with staff, children and parent/carers;
• Inspire all those who must work together to evolve, develop and implement this vision and the
curriculum for children;
• Strategically implement a process of improvement, helping with the development of ongoing
priorities to support children’s wellbeing and achievement in school and creating a mentally healthy
workplace; and
• Measure the impact of targets for change and refine strategic planning based on findings.
The website references the fact that some schools have allocated the oversight for mental health and
wellbeing to one governor but stresses that the issue remains a whole school responsibility.
Integrated Communities Strategy Green Paper
The Government has published a green paper outlining how it intends to deliver its vision for “building
strong integrated communities”. The green paper proposes to support schools to improve educational
outcomes and increase diversity and community cohesion in the following ways:
• supporting schools to increase diversity by publishing a range of model admission arrangements
which include criteria for wider catchment areas to capture more diverse communities;
• requiring all applicants looking to set up free schools to demonstrate how they will boost
integration;
• continued funding for The Schools Linking programme which develops working relationships
between demographically diverse schools;
• continued support for schools to promote British values, including further materials to help teachers
promote these across the curriculum; and
• reviewing and strengthening the powers that Ofsted have in relation to unregistered schools.
The Green Paper also outlines some case studies of schools and academy trusts which have successfully
implemented initiatives to improve integration.
The consultation on the Green Paper, which can be accessed here, closes on the 5th June 2018.
Page 18 of 22
Teacher Retention
Education charity Teach First has recently published a report, Leading Together: Why Supporting School
Leadership Matters, which found that, despite half of classroom teachers being interested in progressing
to leadership, the majority have spent no more than a few hours developing their leadership skills in the
past year. Teach First suggests that a whole-school approach to leadership development could improve
staff retention.
A new ComRes poll for the report found that 49% of classroom teachers said they would be interested
in taking up a leadership position in the future. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of middle leaders said they
would be interested in taking on a more senior position. But the report highlights that opportunities
available to develop and step up to senior roles do not match the demand. 54% of teachers said they
spent no more than a few hours developing the skills needed last year. A further 14% of teachers said
they spent only up to a few hours.
Yet nine out of ten teachers said their school offering excellent leadership development opportunities
would have at least some impact on their likelihood of remaining at the school, with a third of teachers
saying it would have a ‘great impact’. This figure was even higher for teachers thinking about leaving
the profession. Of those teachers who said they were considering leaving within the next year, 41% said
excellent leadership development opportunities would have a great impact on their likelihood of
remaining at their school.
Ofsted data shows that schools with strong leadership are up to ten times more likely to improve overall
at their next inspection. Yet Teach First’s latest report also finds that schools in the poorest areas are
three times more likely to be rated as Inadequate or Requires improvement for effective leadership.
The report coincides with the launch of a two year Leading Together programme to support schools in
areas of greatest need to build strong leadership teams. The programme will be initially funded by the
DfE’s Teaching & Leadership Innovation Fund, meaning Teach First is able to offer the programme at
no cost to schools. Schools taking part in the scheme will be partnered with an experienced senior
school leader and will have access to training, coaching and networking support.
The Teach First report can be accessed here
Views from the Education Secretary
Speaking to the Education Select Committee at the end of March, the Education Secretary, Damian
Hinds, acknowledged the significant cost pressures schools are experiencing but suggested there would
be no additional funding for schools ahead of the 2019 Spending Review.
Whilst a Committee member suggested that a full-scale review of pupil premium funding would be
timely in order to maximise its impact, as well as consideration given to the auto-enrolment of eligible
pupils, the Education Secretary did not commit to a full review.
When specifically asked whether he planned to give Ofsted the power to formally inspect Multi-
Academy Trusts, the Education Secretary declined to address the question directly, speaking instead
about the different roles and responsibilities of the Inspectorate and Regional Schools Commissioners.
Page 19 of 22
A Review of School Exclusions – A Call for Evidence
The recently announced review of school exclusions will be led by Edward Timpson, a former
Government Children’s Minister. The former Minister’s call for evidence from interested stakeholders,
which does not constitute a formal consultation, is open until the 6th May 2018 and be accessed here.
It is intended that a formal report will be presented to the Education Secretary by the end of 2018.
All English state funded schools operate under the same exclusions framework, as set out in legislation
and statutory guidance. In 2015/16, 0.08% of children were permanently excluded from such schools.
However, there are differences in exclusion rates between schools, areas of the country, and pupils with
different characteristics. Research has highlighted that pupils from some ethnic backgrounds are
disproportionally more likely to be excluded from school: for example, Black Caribbean pupils were
permanently excluded at three times the rate of White British pupils. White Irish Traveller and
Gypsy/Roma pupils had by far the highest rates of both fixed period and permanent exclusions. The
review will examine the factors that drive such differences, focusing specifically on:
• Practice in schools in relation to behaviour management and exclusions, including identifying
effective approaches which improve outcomes, particularly for those groups disproportionately
likely to be excluded;
• The exclusions process in schools, exploring how heads decide when to exclude and the role of
governors in reviewing the use of exclusion. The review will not seek to curb the powers heads have
to exclude but will examine the ways in which such powers are exercised;
• Practice in schools in relation to directing pupils to alternative provision without excluding,
including whether this is effective and the impact on pupils who are disproportionately likely to be
excluded;
• The drivers behind the variation in exclusion rates of pupils from different ethnic groups and other
disproportionately represented groups, and the consequences of this;
• The drivers behind geographic variation in exclusion rates, particularly between areas with similar
characteristics;
• The drivers behind the variation in exclusion rates between schools with a similar intake;
• Best practice in managing exclusions and interventions across local areas, such as the use of
managed moves and fair access protocols;
• How current exclusions practice supports effective joint working, including between schools, health
services, children’s social care and virtual school heads;
• How the parent and pupil experience of exclusion varies and best practice in engaging parents and
pupils effectively in the exclusions process;
• The steps taken by schools to ensure that their behaviour and exclusion practices are compliant
with duties under the Equality Act 2010; and
• The guidance in place to ensure the effective use of exclusion and the safeguards to ensure
exclusions do not disproportionately affect certain groups of pupils.
Newly Qualified Teachers (NQT) Induction
The DfE recently revised and updated its statutory guidance on the induction process for NQTs. The
statutory guidance, of which Governing Boards should be aware of and have an understanding of, covers
those educational settings which are both required to or choose to offer induction to their newly
qualified teachers.
Page 20 of 22
Statutory induction is the bridge between initial teacher training and a career in teaching. It combines
a personalised programme of development, support and professional dialogue with monitoring and an
assessment of performance against the relevant standards. The programme should support the NQT in
demonstrating that their performance against the relevant standards is satisfactory by the end of the
period and equip them with the tools to be an effective and successful teacher.
Subject to the exemptions listed in the guidance, a qualified teacher cannot be employed as a teacher
in a relevant school in England unless they have satisfactorily completed an induction period in
accordance with the Regulations and this updated statutory guidance, which can be accessed here
New Measures to support pupils with SEND
New data published at the end of March 2018 highlights that almost 222,000 children and young people
with special educational needs or disabilities (SEND) have had their care reviewed, as part of the
Government’s introduction of new Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans. The new EHC plans provide
tailored support for children and young people with SEND, bringing together their education, health
and social care needs and replacing the old Statements of SEN.
Children and Families Minister, Nadhim Zahawi, has also announced sponsors for 14 new special free
schools across the country, including one in Croydon. Sponsored by Orchard Hill College Academy Trust,
this will be a 150-place special free school and nursery for pupils aged 2-19 with autism spectrum
disorder.
The government has also launched a national trial to give the SEND Tribunal new powers, which give
parents and young people new rights to appeal decisions on the social care and health parts of their
plan. alongside their existing rights around education. The SEND Tribunal hears appeals about EHC
plans where there are disputes, but until now only had powers to look in to concerns on the education
element of the plan.
The findings of two related studies by IFF Research and the University of Derby have also been
published, highlighting the factors that shape positive user experiences of the EHC planning process,
and illustrate good practice in developing EHC plan content. A SEND review tool to help schools identify
priorities and build school to school approaches to improvement is also now available. This is supported
by a number of tools to address any weaknesses identified and can be accessed here
Shortage of Secondary Teachers
Analysis undertaken by the TES has shown that England needs 47,000 more secondary school teachers
by 2024 if it is to meet the challenge of rising pupil numbers and stay in line with average pupil-teacher
ratios. The TES highlighted that the rise in the overall number of teachers masked a significant
impending shortage at secondary level.
At primary level, the number of teachers has risen considerably from a low of 196,400 in 2010 to 222,300
in 2016, with this increase in line with an increase in primary pupil numbers over this period. Yet at
secondary level, the number of teachers has fallen from 222,400 in 2009 to 208,100 in 2016. Whilst the
recruitment crisis has had an impact, the TES argues that the overall effect has been cushioned by a
Page 21 of 22
decline in secondary pupil numbers, falling from 3.3M in 2005 to 3.1M by 2014. However, with the bulge
in primary numbers moving on, the number of secondary pupils is expected to climb steeply to 3.8M
by 2024.
To stay in line with the average secondary pupil-teacher ratio, the TES has calculated that an additional
47,000 secondary teachers will be needed by 2024, representing a 22.5% increase in current secondary
teacher numbers. Yet, the number of applications to train as a secondary teacher has fallen 16% year
on year, which is set to result in a smaller pool of potential new teachers from which to draw. There are
significant challenges in meeting targets in some key subjects, such as modern foreign languages and
maths. Furthermore, the TES calculation does not take into account the teachers already in the system
leaving and needing to be replaced.
The New Advanced Maths Premium
Recent weeks has seen the DfE announce a new fund to help schools and colleges increase the number
of students studying maths after GCSE, the Advanced Maths Premium. From September 2018, schools
and colleges will receive an extra £600 premium for each additional pupil taking the one-year AS Maths
or the Core Maths qualification: this could result in £1,200 for each additional pupil who takes the two-
year A level in maths or further maths. The £600 premium is equivalent to 15% of the base funding per
student.
The premium will also support educational institutions to increase the number of girls and those from
disadvantaged backgrounds taking advanced maths qualifications. Whilst maths continues to be the
most popular subject at A level, research shows that there are almost three quarters of students with an
A*-C in GCSE maths who decide not to continue studying the subject post 16.
As highlighted in the Sir Adrian Smith review, there is an increasing demand for maths and quantitative
skills in all levels of the labour market and maths has been outlined as the key skill required by employers
by 2030. The Advanced Maths Premium is expected to increase the provision of maths and the quality
of education provided to pupils, therefore better preparing them for further study and future careers.
Asbestos Management Assurance Process (AMAP)
The ESFA has recently published the Asbestos Management Assurance Process (AMAP) online portal
user-guide. Responsible Bodies are being asked to complete the AMAP. Responsible Bodies are the
employers of school staff. For maintained schools this will be the Local Authority, for Foundation or
voluntary aided schools the governors and for academies, the Academy Trust.
The ESFA has defined the types of provision required to complete the assurance process as maintained
nursery schools, maintained schools, maintained special schools and academy special schools, pupil
referral units, academies and free schools and non-maintained special schools.
All Responsible Bodies are expected to complete the AMAP and submit an assurance declaration by
Thursday 31st May 2018. Responsible Bodies need to ensure that they include every school for which
they are responsible in the AMAP declaration, either completing all returns themselves or asking schools
to complete the information requested and then submit it to them for review.
Page 22 of 22
Responsible Bodies should already be identifying and managing asbestos in their schools as part of
their estate management and health and safety duties. Leaders and Governing Boards of maintained
schools and Academy Trusts should read the ESFA’s guidance, Asbestos Management in School, and
review their asbestos management arrangements before completing the assurance process.
Schemes for Financing Schools
Mid-March 2018 saw the DfE issue statutory guidance on schemes for financing (maintained) schools,
setting out the financial relationship between the Local Authority and the schools they maintain. The
statutory guidance explains the provisions a scheme must include; the guidance should be followed
unless there is a very good reason not to.
Although the statutory guidance is aimed primarily at Local Authorities, it is useful background reading
for governors who have been allocated the Finance Link Governor portfolio, and the wider
finance/resources committee members. The statutory guidance can be found here
Gender Pay Gaps
All UK organisations with over 250 employees were required to publish details of their gender pay gap
by the 4th April 2018. 40 of the 100 companies with the biggest pay gap across England, Wales and
Scotland, that had declared their figures by mid-March, are primary or secondary schools, with 10 of
those having a median pay gap of 50% or higher. The BBC considered the 181 gender pay gap reports
that had been released by schools and Multi-Academy Trusts by mid-March.
Overall, the BBC’s data analysis has found that only 11 of these schools pay women a better median
hourly rate than men. The BBC report found one MAT (The Peninsula Learning Trust which runs seven
primary academies and one secondary academy in Cornwall) with a pay gap of 59.8%, with men paid
nearly 60% more than women. The Trust in question informed the BBC that this was the result of its
workforce structure and that "no discrimination takes place between men and women".
The teaching unions remain concerned that government data shows male teachers are £900 better off,
and men in leadership roles can be paid £4,000 more than women doing similar work. The National
Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) has called for the teachers' pay
review body to look at the issue of their members taking their salary with them when they move schools.
The union says there is evidence that women are more likely to start on a lower salary when they transfer.
This, the union argues, accounts for some of the gender pay gap between teachers.
Furthermore, all unions have expressed concerns that women going on maternity leave are sometimes
asked to wait to receive pay progression. According to data from the National Education Union, one
reason why the gender pay gap is so high in some schools and MATs is that, despite 36% of teachers
being men, 62% of headteachers are men.