April 2017

Features

Squeezed until it hurtsThe findings of ASCL’s survey on the impact of the funding crisis make frightening reading and are further proof that there is still too little money being spent on education, says Malcolm Trobe. More

Shared valuesWhat are the values and principles that underpin great leadership? Could expressing those make a better education system? Here ASCL Honorary Secretary Carolyn Roberts shares her thoughts and asks for yours on proposals for a new Commission on Ethical Leadership in Education. More

You're hiredStaff recruitment is a burning issue in schools and colleges, especially due to a severe teacher shortage, so it’s vital to get it right. Managing Director of BlueSky Denise Inwood advises on how to get the right person for the job. More

Research insightsAmanda Taylor, Deputy Head of the Centre for Information and Knowledge at the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), highlights the latest research and evidence, government statistics and guidance on multi-academy trusts (MATs). More

Sacré bleu!Modern languages are in crisis says former ASCL president Ian Bauckham. Here he highlights why and shares key findings from a review on languages in schools. More

Deep impactIf the expertise for school improvement lies within schools, as is widely accepted, how is that expertise best shared? Federation CEO Adrian Percival explores how truly meaningful collaboration works. More

The findings of ASCL’s survey on the impact of the funding crisis make frightening reading and are further proof that there is still too little money being spent on education, says Malcolm Trobe.

Squeezed until it hurts

As far as gambling is concerned we are told that there is never a ‘sure thing’ that you can safely put money on. However, if someone were to ask any school or college leader to list the two things they were most concerned about, I’m pretty certain that everyone would hit the jackpot: funding and teacher supply.

I think that we would all agree that our education system should prepare young people for life in a global, digitised community while continuing to equip them with the core skills, knowledge and understanding that they need in their adult lives. The long-term economic wellbeing of the country will depend on us having a well-educated, highly skilled workforce. The funding of education must therefore be seen as a necessary investment for the future prosperity of the nation.

ASCL continues to raise vigorously with government the major problems that schools and colleges have been facing over the last few years with ‘flat cash’ and significant increases in costs, many of which have been imposed by the government itself. We all know what the key funding issues are:

no increase in the per pupil funding rate and no plans to increase it in the future, meaning that all cost increases are, in reality, unfunded

the Education Service Grant (ESG) reduced and now abolished

employers’ contributions to teachers’ pensions up by 2.38% from September 2015

the main band of employers’ National Insurance (NI) contributions up by 3.4% from April 2016

unfunded pay awards for staff

unfunded inflation costs

the Apprenticeship Levy coming in April 2017 – imposing a 0.5% levy on the payroll costs of all maintained schools and many academies

national minimum wage increases affecting schools and colleges either directly through some of their employees or indirectly through increased contract costs for some services

In addition, we are aware of a further increase in employers’ contributions to teachers’ pensions forecast for 2019–20 as the government moves the costs of future pension shortfalls to the education budget.

And recently we read that some schools may face rises in their rates following the review of business rates.

Concerted action

Funding is an issue on which we need continued and concerted action. We have seen school leaders across the country in areas such as West Sussex, East Cheshire, Oxfordshire and Devon campaigning robustly for the government to put more money into education, seeking support from their governors and local communities, and engaging with their MPs to take the matter up with ministers. Collectively and individually, we must keep the pressure on the Treasury and the DfE.

Although the recent national funding formula (NFF) consultation has stimulated the debate, the fundamental issue is that there is insufficient money going into education. The government keeps saying that there never has been so much money put into our schools. Yes, the overall education budget is rising, but only due to the increase in the number of pupils in the education system. The per pupil funding rate is not increasing at all.

To evidence our case we have carried out a national survey of ASCL members on the impact of the funding crisis and the headline results make frightening reading:

95% of respondents said that their school has had to cut back on support services over the past 12 months.

68% said that rising cost pressures have resulted in their school having to reduce the amount of ‘enrichment’ activities they provide over the past 12 months.

82% said that their school has had to increase class sizes as a result of cost pressures over the past 12 months.

72% of the respondents whose schools teach Key Stage 4 have had to remove courses from their GCSE options or vocational subjects over the past 12 months because of cost pressures.

79% of respondents whose schools teach Key Stage 5 have had to remove courses from their A level options or vocational subjects over the past 12 months because of cost pressures.

71% said that their school faces additional unfunded costs as a result of the new apprenticeship levy.

Most respondents say that, over the next 12 months, they will have to cut more support services, enrichment activities and course options, and further increase class sizes.

We are all aware of the direct impact these changes have on the lives and life chances of young people. It means, for example, students not being able to follow the GCSE or A level courses they want to study, reduced access to mental health and special needs support and fewer school trips, school clubs and activities.

When the impact of the funding shortfall is combined with the current crisis in teacher supply, the position becomes even more concerning.

Recruiting difficulties

An earlier survey conducted to provide evidence to the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) about the need to place teaching on the shortage occupation list – which makes it easier for schools to recruit from countries outside the European Economic Area (EEA) – found that nearly all respondents reported difficulties in recruiting teachers. A total of 80% said that the situation was worse or significantly worse than 12 months ago.

ASCL members were asked if the recruitment difficulties they were experiencing had affected the education they were able to deliver to pupils:

51% said that the situation has affected performance in GCSEs.

23% said it had affected performance in A levels/AS levels.

71% have had to use non-specialists – those without a degree in the relevant subject – to teach classes.

27% are no longer able to provide courses in some subjects, such as design and technology, music, and modern foreign languages.

We were then staggered when the MAC indicated that they did recognise that there was a national teacher shortage.

The government has no overarching, robust strategy to deal with this really important matter. Therefore, at our Annual Conference, we reiterated our offer to the Secretary of State to assist ministers and civil servants in developing a strong teacher recruitment and retention strategy, and also to host a summit on this critical issue.

Our strong funding message at conference was that there is insufficient money going into education and we also highlighted our major concern over the NFF.

Fundamental flaw

ASCL very much welcomed the reaffirmed commitment of government to establish a fair and transparent formula for distribution of school funding. However, we believe that the structure proposed for the formula will not allow for all children to reach their full potential because the basic per pupil funding values are too low, so a significant unfairness of distribution remains. The detailed analysis we have carried out indicates quite clearly that for both primary and secondary schools, the base funding level is insufficient to allow a school to operate. Using the figures in these proposals, the only way that a school can run and remain solvent is to use a proportion (in some cases, a significant proportion) of the funding provided for additionality to subsidise the basic funding. So, the ‘additionality’ money will not be used as intended, be that to address disadvantage or low prior attainment or to help pupils with English as an additional language (EAL).

Surely, the fundamental principle of developing any funding formula must be to get the base foundation level right. Otherwise, you are ‘building on sand’ and the formula will be fundamentally flawed.

We must ensure that this does not happen. Otherwise, all that will change is one inequitable system will be replaced by a different inequitable one.

Surely, the fundamental principle of developing any funding formula must be to get the base foundation level right. Otherwise, you are ‘building on sand’ and the formula will be fundamentally flawed.