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.