Productivity starts with Education

From a HR perspective. I'd very much like to see the Government Policy Unit look a lot more closely at the Academy System and read more closely with full critical appraisal, the NAO reports on value for money and delivery in Education for both Primary and Secondary Schools.

NAO Report says in a nutshell.

The NAO reported on the financial sustainability of schools in 2016, and concluded that the Department for Education’s (the Department’s) overall schools budget, as set out in the 2015 Spending Review, was protected in real terms but did not provide for funding per pupil to increase in line with inflation. Therefore, mainstream schools would need to find significant savings to counteract cost pressures. Because of growing pupil numbers, average per-pupil funding was virtually unchanged in real terms between 2014-15 and 2020-21. The increases in cash funding did not cover estimated cost pressures between 2015-16 and 2019-20 but were projected to exceed them in 2020-21.

It goes on to say -There has been a shift in the balance of funding from more deprived to less deprived local areas. This shift has resulted mainly from changes in relative need and the introduction of minimum per-pupil funding levels. Although more deprived local authorities and schools continue on average to receive more per pupil than those that are less deprived, the difference in funding has narrowed.

Some Key Findings from the IFS states.

Key findings

1. Between 2010 and 2019, total school spending in England rose by 1% in real terms. But since total pupil numbers grew by 11% over this period, school spending per pupil fell by 9%.
2. Since the last general election in 2019, there has been a ￡6 billion (or 11%) real-terms increase in total spending. This has enabled spending per pupil to return to the same real-terms level as in 2010. ?
3. No real-terms growth in school spending per pupil over 14 years is historically unusual. The long-run average growth in school spending per pupil since the 1970s is about 2% per year in real terms. Under the 1997–2010 Labour government, school spending per pupil rose by about 5–6% per year in real terms. ?
4. School costs have grown rapidly in recent years and by more than overall inflation. This reflects increases in staff pay and rising food and energy costs. We estimate that schools’ costs will grow by 4% in 2024 (compared with economy-wide inflation of 1%). This could leave the purchasing power of school budgets about 4% lower than in 2010. ?
5. Growth in pupil numbers since 2009 has now gone into reverse, with pupil numbers expected to fall by over 5% or 400,000 between 2024 and 2028. The falling pupil population creates potential opportunities for savings in total school spending in the post-election Spending Review. If spending per pupil is frozen in real terms, total spending could be cut by about ￡3.5 billion. If spending per pupil grew in line with likely school costs, then savings would be about ￡1.7 billion. But such savings may be difficult to realise in practice. Given that staffing costs represent more than 80% of school spending, savings can also only really be delivered with reductions in the workforce and/or school closures.
6. If total school spending were to be frozen in real terms between 2024 and 2028, falling pupil numbers mean that spending per pupil would grow by 1.5% per year. That is somewhat below the long-run average of 2% per year. This would, however, still see school spending significantly better protected than other areas of public services (where unprotected departments face real-terms cuts of 2–3.5% on the current plans implied by the fiscal rules that both main parties have signed up to). ?
7. Whatever level of spending is set by the next government, it will face a range of immediate spending pressures, including special educational needs provision, teacher pay, and repairs needed to school buildings. ?
8. The number of pupils assessed as having the highest levels of special educational needs (i.e. with an Education, Health and Care Plan) increased by over 60% from about 220,000 in 2015 to about 360,000 in 2022. This was mostly driven by a near-doubling in the numbers of pupils with autistic spectrum disorders, speech and language needs, and social, emotional and mental health needs. This has placed huge pressure on school spending. The ￡3.5 billion increase in the high-needs budget since 2015 has taken up nearly half of the ￡7.6 billion increase in school spending since 2015.
9. Average teacher pay across the UK in 2024 is expected to be over 6% lower in real terms than in 2010, and is at a similar level in real terms to that seen in 2001. The decline is concentrated among more experienced teachers, whose salaries have fallen 11% in real terms (new recruits have seen little real-terms change in pay). In contrast, average earnings are due to be about 6% higher in 2024 than in 2010, and about 18% higher than in 2001. These declines in teacher pay relative to average earnings may help to explain why teacher recruitment is significantly behind targets and why 1 in 10 teachers leave the state sector each year. ?

Academy Groups as a solution to upping the game in Education delivery and as the NAO reports established, they do not improve standards, if anything, spend per actual pupil, subject areas, teacher training, and the intake profile of teachers has dropped.

I took a closer look at this a couple of years back and in good detail.

We set up a panel of teachers, headteachers, teacher trade unions and a Local Authority Councillor Chaired a public talk on Education Budgets and Social Mobility .

The findings were very clear on the pressure on Schools to join an Academy Group as public budgets were squeezed and unnaturally forcing capable and performing schools into an Academy Group to share resources.

This was absolutely counterintuitive to the original purpose of an Academy solution which was, when LA could not remedy a serious school issue, Academy was intended to be only as a last resort.

The loss of Per Pupil spend and the loss of curriculum subjects and less school resources was an area of frustration from the teaching panel, a set of people who really care about the future of the UK's children.

Issue in general. UK business should stop leaning on Public Money and Contracts as a business model.

Academies are simply not a good solution for UK Productivity, serving no tangible purpose, nor do they add value to education.

The LA system is by far more joined up, coherent, and objective as the transition education strategy between Primary and Secondary schools are fully coordinated unlike Academy Groups who individually determine many areas of the school Curriculum and how resources are applied.

Look instead at Innovation, Manufacturing, Engineering, Technologies, Sciences, Energy, Food Production, Climate Sensitive Initiatives and start planning for 20 to 40 years ahead.

A mixed economy is a more secure and makes for a stable and dynamic economy, good social mobility underpins that ambition.

I hope, the next UK Govt. puts a lid on certain Institutes endeavours to mimimise training and education models.

Diluting qualifications and detail of the subject syllabus in the Academy system is a real problem and unambitious for social and economic progress .

Skills and Employers.

For UK business, education standards will provide the pipeline of skills required to drive strategy and production forward.

Organisations that sponsor staff will benefit from a solid foundation of skills and learning ability.

Education attainment is core to productivity, social mobility and competition in the world market place, that is a fact, so we all need to care about it.

Reworking Govt Policy to facilitate micro commercial objectives is the rot that has caused the most damage.

There must be a separation now so Innovation can flourish where a Service Led Economy is shrunk in favour of Engineering, Technology, Manufacturing, Science etc. and Quality of delivery is high.

Education, education, education...