Guest piece by Linda Zabriski

The growing popularity of online, advanced education degrees has led to many as-yet unanswered questions regarding economic impact. For many, in picking one of the various online masters degree programs, they give themselves a chance to receive an advance education that may have eluded them otherwise, but the question remains of whether or not that is a sound economic decision.  Regarding this issue, the United States looks to the UK to supply answers.

“The UK is the most internet-based major economy,” writes Melanie Hick, columnist for The Huffington Post. The UK Internet economy is growing at a rate of 10.9%, while other developed nations are growing at an average of 8.1%. The country does not come by this increase by chance. In fact, the UK has initiated a number of programs to improve its Internet usage, including online education, because it believes Internet connectivity can help boost its economy.

While the UK’s online programs are just beginning to develop, the government is already making a commitment to “invest in education.” This investment is what the UK and other countries call “human capital.” Human capital is defined as “a measure of the economic value of an employee’s skill set. The concept of human capital recognizes that the quality of employees can be improved by investing in their education.

Fortunately for the UK and the United States, businesses and industries are becoming more accepting of online degrees, and that acceptance level is expected to rise. Recently, awareness and appreciation of online education has grown to the point that it might eventually be considered equal to campus-based education. With this knowledge in mind, online programs have drawn more traditional and nontraditional students. Some of these same students would not have been able to access brick-and-mortar institutions and can improve their skills, thereby adding to their long-term potential.

David Willetts, Minister of State for Universities and Science stated in a 2012 speech regarding economic growth that “our greatest national assets–our universities, our science facilities and researchers, our extraordinary accomplishments in the arts and humanities–are the best single hope for making our way in the high-tech world of the future.” Willetts believes that while these assets might not solve all the country’s economic woes, they can certainly help.

Dame Lynne Brindley, chief executive of the British Library since 2000 and head of the UK’s Online Learning Task Force, believes that online education is vital in today’s society, especially during the UK’s recession: “The key goal is to help UK higher education remain a world leader in online learning, growing its international market share by 2015.”

The UK Online Learning Task Force is also working to eliminate the the “stigma” associated with online education. In order for economies to realize the potential of online education, businesses need to look positively on online degrees. If current trends continue, this potential will likely become a reality. For instance, online undergraduate degrees are more readily accepted than online graduate degrees.

Now that technology enables employees to acquire new skills easily and cheaply, employers can require more area-specific knowledge, outsource training programs, and hire increasingly qualified candidates. It is only a matter of testing out the “products” of online programs. In time, as employers experience the benefits, and deficits, of online academics, they will be able to make better decisions regarding new hires. In the meantime, facilitating experimentation may be the best way to inspire confidence.

Guest post by Rob Robson, Chair of the Engineering Steering Group

Although there has been a lot of turbulence and many changes in education, many of them have seen us addressing and revisiting old ground.  What we need, and perhaps by 2037 we will have, is a new way of educating children because by then we will be facing a very different economic and social landscape. Two things that I have read recently have made me think that, at last, education might be turning to face the future.

The first was a short letter in The Times.  It was from an academic asking whether universities were needed in the future.  He explained that in the past, universities had been founded in order to gather people around that most expensive of resources, books.  But he then asked about the role of universities in education as information becomes available to more people, is easily accessible and is becoming cheaper. We should ask the same of schools. Do we really need large institutions which bring children into a prescribed “one size fits all” curriculum for hours every day or do we need something quite different for the future? 

The second piece of reading was a reference to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and an initiative they are now running called MITx.  The university is offering the opportunity for students around the world to study one of their courses online to gain MIT accreditation for free. Undoubtedly this offer is possible because of the power of MIT’s immense financial backing which is very different to many universities who struggle for funds but it may indicate the way in which education has to go.  It simply won’t be possible for universities and schools to charge the tax payer or individuals thousands of pounds for a curriculum when the content will be freely available via the Internet or its future incarnation.

To survive, the education system has to be able to add value to simply learning facts and we have to innovate to do this. Models of innovation meant that companies used large sums of money to research and develop their own ideas but this approach is very rapidly changing.  Organisations who are nimble innovate by inventing and then letting users do the innovation through networks which encourage development and customisation to bring the idea to the market.  Surely we will see something similar happening in education? By 2037, I don’t think we will be bringing children into a central place for their learning.  We will be able to personalise a child’s learning to play to that individual’s strengths and interests. We know from the way that society is rapidly developing that a flexible work force is essential. And so in schools children will need to learn the skills that they need for the future that they want. These will be the so called ‘soft’ skills of, networking, nimbleness, leadership, flexibility, teamwork and collaborative learning. Schools will not be able to rely on a prescribed curriculum because that will be out of date as soon as it is laid down.  So we are left with the challenge of preparing children for a future we don’t know.

To prepare for this uncertain future, schools must learn how to create the conditions for innovation and leaders must develop organisations that are innovation centres in the future.  Leaders cannot create innovation hubs in isolation from each other.  Modern innovation is about networking and it is very much about working together.  That is why all leaders need to spend time working as part of a system of education not as leaders in separated schools and organisations like the Schools Network must continue their crucial role of developing and encouraging networks of innovation for the future.

Guest article by Stephen Munday, Chair of the Leading Edge Steering Group

The past 25 years just happens to be almost precisely the span of my own career to date within the teaching profession. Various key themes have shaped the development of the schools’ system during this time. Two linked and yet perhaps contradictory such themes have been school independence and school collaboration. The purpose of this think piece is to explore these two and to reflect on their possible compatibility or otherwise. A personal contention is that both are highly desirable and that we must thus seek ways to ensure that they can properly co-exist.

 The independence journey is a clear one for schools in the past 25 years. The Local Management of School was followed by the possibility of Grant Maintained Status in the early 1990s. Seen as close to revolutionary by many in the system at the time, it now looks rather less so. It was superseded by Foundation status as the Labour Government moved to puts its own stamp on the school independence move. In later years of that Government, Academy status became a possibility for the few and Trust Schools became a possibility for the many. Now, Academy status is available for very many and probably for all. This is a 25-year trend, not some new creation of a new Coalition Government.

 My own view is that the direction of travel is good. Independence for schools is desirable. I would further contend that this is not a political point (it is interesting how the trend has continued across different Governments). Rather, it is a principle of how to get the best possible public services. As far as is possible, both decision-making and resource should be delegated to those responsible for providing the service. It is the service providers who are best placed to make the best decisions and to ensure that the resource is most effectively targeted to providing the service. The more resource and decision-making get stuck at some other level, the less effectively it is likely to be targeted at what matters most: the provision of the service itself. For schools, this means allowing schools to have access to the largest amount of the resource that can be passed to them, together with the power to make fundamental decisions about the provision of education for young people. From this perspective, Academies are a positive development and the sort of school system that we should desire.

 Together with school independence, the theme of school-to-school collaboration has been strong through the past 25 years. Many examples of developments and initiatives can easily be quoted to confirm this: the development of specialisms with their expectation of a ‘community’ remit; the accreditation of Advanced Skills Teachers with the expectation that they work alongside colleagues in other schools; Leading Edge and Training School designations that clearly expected schools to work in partnership with other schools; the development of various versions of federations, trusts and then sponsored academies, all with the expectation of hard, tight partnership working between schools (or academies); the work of NLEs, LLEs and now SLEs and the expectation that they would work to support leaders in schools other than their own; and now the development of Teaching School Alliances to develop a network of schools working together to provide a landscape of school-to-school support and school-based training and professional development. Again, the trend has been powerful and persistent, continuing through different hues of Governments.

 Some of the collaboration and partnership drive may have been shallow insofar as it was reactive to incentives, financial and other, placed in the system to encourage its development. However, for many it was also a genuine recognition that there was clear mutual benefit to be had from working together with other schools rather than working in isolation. All can be, and often have been, better off due to this. Many of us can quote many clear examples of this. Both of our own school’s inspections this millennium clearly stated that our very considerable partnership work could be seen to be of direct benefit to our own pupils and clearly contributed to high-quality teaching and learning. I have no hesitation in saying that this work was a major contributory factor in securing ‘outstanding’ grades for teaching and learning in both of those inspections.

 But now comes the rub. Can we really hold the trend to ever-greater independence at the same time as continuing to collaborate genuinely and powerfully? Do we not hit a contradiction somewhere? Will not one give in the face of the other? We have to be honest and say that it could. Strong independence with strong freedoms might very easily lead schools/academies to set their faces against each other and look for opportunity to gain at the expense of another. There is greater opportunity for that and the temptation for many might reasonably be strong. We have more opportunity to become stronger and better (or at least to try to do so) by pushing aside others. Collaboration recedes and the system becomes more fractured. Again, a personal view would be that this would be a tremendous shame and not at all in the interests of the system as a whole. Genuinely, I believe that we are all better off, and the system in total is definitely better off, if we seek to support each other rather than the opposite.

 So is there a way forward as we move into the next 25 years? I believe that there is. The essence of this may hinge on all of us having some agreed code of ethics. Doctors have had this for very many years and everyone acknowledges the need for it. Why do we not confirm the same need for another great public service tradition, namely teaching? In fact, an ethical code can fairly simply be drawn up that mirrors the code for doctors and can be applicable to the teaching profession. An attempt to do this is shown as appendix 1. I believe that we would be well served in coming years by affirming such an agreed code and agreeing that we all must abide by it in order properly to be called teaching professionals. From the perspective of school leaders, I think that some of the essence of this can easily be confirmed by a view about what our jobs and roles really are. In essence, do we see ourselves as individual school leaders, or do we believe ourselves truly to be system leaders? If it is the former, then it is just our own school that matters. We might do whatever it takes just to further the ends of our school alone. If it is the latter, then that approach is not possible. We must genuinely be interested in and feel a responsibility for other schools and for pupils in schools other than our own. We must and will collaborate for mutual benefit if this is how we view our role. We can and will hold together independence and collaboration as twin positive themes that do not contradict but sit together for the benefit of our education system. If we all truly see ourselves as system leaders, then every school can be a good (or better) school.

Guest piece by Geoff Barton

I had assumed that predicting the future was a thing of the past.

Then I read that it’s actually a fairly recent phenomenon. Our medieval forebears would have considered it bizarre to talk about the future in terms of anything other than the seasons: They’d do “summer is coming in” and that kind of thing.

It was only with the onset of an industrial age – ie the eighteenth century – that humans started to expect that the quality of life for their children could be different – and hopefully better – than for themselves.

We began to talk about and plan for a different future from our own present-day. By the 1940s and 50s this resulted in those optimistic imaginings of the way the glamorously-named ‘space age’ was going to change everything.

Look at those garishly illustrated depictions of the future, and we were all predicted to live in heaven-piercing apartments from which we would travel to and from work in gravity-defying rocket-ships.

With their cosmic backdrops – big planets usually hanging low on the horizon to suggest that some of our neighbours had moved to live across the universe – these images of the future were full of cheery optimism. The human race, it seemed, was doing well: technology was setting us free and making life better.

Since then we’ve had our fair share of troubles: arms races, wars, terrorist attacks, a looming environmental disaster called global warming, and other stuff that’s probably too gloomy for a blog like this.

It means that if people predict the future now, it’s not with the unalloyed enthusiasm of our mid-twentieth century predecessors. The horizon has darkened.

Take education. One of the clichés of some conferences I’ve been to is that someone, unusually and inexplicably in a dark polo neck sweater and suit (think Milk Tray Man) shows us a picture of children sitting in serried ranks in a Victorian classroom. He then flicks to an image of something strikingly similar from a classroom today.

The point, we are told, is that education hasn’t kept us with the pace of change. A modern-day operating theatre wouldn’t look like one from a hundred years ago, yet classrooms have hardly developed.

But I think something in education has changed. Ian Gilbert’s latest book is called Why do I Need a Teacher When I’ve Got Google? It’s not a bad question. Whereas when I was at school if you had a bad teacher you simply tolerated it, now there’s less need to do so: more up-to-date information than your teacher might know is waiting there, shimmering in cyber-space, to be accessed, downloaded, and cut-n-pasted at will.

Learning is therefore both easier (quick to find) and harder (having to judge what’s trustworthy and reliable), and that’s where I think students will always need teachers. Our role will be to show them how to gain knowledge, how to apply it, how to make connections between ideas and – crucially – how to be creative.

That’s something computers can’t do, and I suspect all of us retain the thrill of learning from experts and seeing how they help us to navigate a world of difficult and challenging ideas.

Nowhere is this more important than in literacy – my special interest. Effective speaking, listening, reading and writing aren’t mere mechanical skills. The best communicators have a sense of style and passion and purpose. They do things with language we hadn’t thought you could do. They surprise us. They interpret our world.

In my educational future we’ll probably still have rooms, even if they aren’t called classrooms. And we’ll still have older, more experienced people coaching and mentoring and instructing younger people, even if they aren’t called teachers.

We’ll need them to help us develop the skill that defines us as a species: homo grammaticus, the species with language, with grammar.

When mothers and fathers sit teaching their child to read, they aren’t just passing on some set of mechanical skills: they are showing them how to be more human. It’s what great teachers use literacy to do – to help us to use our most extraordinary human gift of language.

I think that’s something we’re always going to need.

Geoff Barton published ‘Read, Write Speak!’ with The Schools Network in March 2012. This student workbook is packed with literacy boosting activities to support KS3 students to improve their speaking, listening, reading, writing and critical thinking skills, whilst helping schools prepare for the literacy focus of the Ofsted inspection framework. Find out more.

A perspective from Graham Quinn, Chair of the National SEN Steering Group.

Drawing on the developments of the past 25 years, what are the key challenges and opportunities for schools, teachers and their young people over the next 25 years?

I began my career in special education almost 20 years ago. 

When examining the issue of where our schools, children and stakeholders may be in the next 25 years let me take you down memory lane.  You know the one where you had to play either a guitar or piano to work alongside children with additional needs.  Warnock had just started to impact as the young people all had “statements of SEN” as a legal entitlement.   A time when you and your classroom support assistant could take eight young people on the train, to London and then onward to France, for a residential, without filling out a single risk assessment and without needing to take a multitude of mobile hoists and slings.    

When I began teaching there was no National Curriculum.  There may have been some schemes of work (based around EDY!) but I guess most of us were left to get on with our own thing.  I remember a greater emphasis on fun and enjoyment but this may just be my fading memory.  I do remember “holding” activities by the Classroom Support Assistant while the “expert” teacher analysed and placed pp (physical prompt), vp (verbal prompt) and I (independent) into small boxes!   Peer observations and appraisal were occasional and I didn’t see an “inspector” until I’d been teaching 10 years.  Who also remembers the time of 6 month notice of inspections?  Ratchet up the stress levels after about 20 weeks.  I do recall a significant amount of support by the local authority and it was always my aspiration, after being a Head, to work as “an advisor”.  We did have one computer (in the school), an old BBC with a Green Screen, they’d never catch on!  How many of you remember the fact that the only finances the school controlled was the capitation, for resources. 

Our children and schools always appeared to be a couple of years behind mainstream schools when new initiatives and developments were rolled out: think National Curriculum, Local management of Schools, Specialist status, School Improvement Partners.   My career has taken me through the debate in the 90’s where almost every month we needed to “defend” the very existence of special schools.   I’ve worked through the debates about co location, continuum of provision, stand-alone special schools. 

Most of us were comfortable with the concept that Every Child Mattered (SHEEP acronyms all round) and, it could be argued, that the funding for capital projects placed a renewed value on our organisations.  Significant funding streams such as TVEI, SRB6, New Deals for Communities, Aiming High, Getting a Life, Aim Higher were a plenty but came with clearly determined outcomes.   However, it could be argued, that we are presently experiencing less local and National Interference and more “trust” afforded to schools to make more appropriate arrangements for their children and stake holders.  The “trust”, it could be argued, is somewhat tempered by a significant and very regular National inspection regime – which if they didn’t keep changing the framework, I could live with.   

So what have we collectively learnt?

I am a born optimist; I have to be supporting a League 1 football team with very limited aspirations.  But isn’t the word aspiration the one we should be focusing on as we move into the next twenty five years.  It would be ideal if our profession ceased  to engage in the arguments of where a child should be educated and place our energies and creative thoughts into  how, collectively,  the “system” can empower our young people.

It will be brilliant to see funding following the child and family, through individualised budgets, and for families and advocates to use this money on bespoke packages.  Schools will be forced to modernise.  Let’s strive to find the latest technical devices, whatever they will be, to empower our children.  We probably won’t have even dreamed of them yet!    We should be at the forefront of this research. 

We need to ensure our staffing teams are able to take up this challenge.  Offer higher quality initial teacher training (that really involves schools) to ensure our teachers and school leaders of the future to have the skills required to work with our children.  Schools of the future will not only require excellent practitioners and colleagues with outstanding  leadership skills but also to be first class managers of people, as collaboration and transferable skills within our workforces  will be essential.

Our children, recent research informs us, are coming into the school system with many more overlapping conditions that impact upon their learning.  We should develop our workforce to empower individuals not straightjacket them around arbitrary roles.

It would be wonderful if our curriculum offer was able to celebrate the arts, allow the young people to keep active, develop enquiry, innovate our key skills programme, ensure independence and engage with the latest technologies.  Building this into a world view will be essential.

Where and when should this offer occur?  If recent policy is anything to go by then a period of more autonomous schools is in the offing.  Schools will almost certainly gravitate to partnership working – it’s what the most successful organisations are good at.  We’ll see federations, links, chains and even umbrellas!  Will we still have 39 week offers?  I doubt it.  I believe there will be a blurring of the edges of the curricular and extra-curricular into a more “wrap around” offer.

However perhaps our next stage of system change should centre upon “real” impact?

The combined and seamless system should empower our young people to participate and contribute to our communities in a way they feel valued and equal partners.  This will not just challenge our schools but society as a whole.  Maybe elements of funding should be linked to ensuring that schools offer young people appropriate post school placements.

The last 25 years have seen improvements in many aspects of policies and systems.  I would argue not enough emphasis has been given to outcomes that directly link to the communities in which our children spend their leisure time, work and lives.  There are going to be exciting times ahead.

Oh and, a plea, let’s make it fun.  Let’s ensure we keep those moments of awe and wonder, because we all have to remember it is the best job in the world!

Conor Ryan writes the latest in our series of articles looking forward to the next 25 years in education to celebrate 25 years of The Schools Network.

When Lord Baker launched City Technology Colleges 25 years ago, he was creating a school brand. It was certainly not uncontroversial, and it developed in unexpected ways. Technology Colleges and their successor specialist schools proved easier to expand. They made a big difference to standards, as they focused schools on what they could do best; and in doing so, they helped thousands of schools to become better all-rounders.

When the Labour government re-ignited the CTC model through academies, its early incarnation was as much through private philanthropy as through branded chains. But as academies have grown, so have the chains. Last year, the improvements from Harris, Ark and ULT were not only in excess of the national average, they were ahead of the academies average too.

Other growing brands have been promoted by pioneering headteachers like David Carter’s Cabot schools in the West, Michael Wilkins’ Outwood model in Yorkshire and David Triggs’ Greensward brand through the Academies Enterprise Trust. With the growth of free schools and the introduction of primary sponsored academies, there is a real demand for successful chains to expand.

There are some who say that we will only really get traction with school brands when profit-making schools, as in Sweden or parts of the States, are unleashed into English education. But while profit-making may help some brands, those who make the case also ignore the entrepreneurial spirit of English heads that has been a remarkable change since the CTC Trust – that is now The Schools Network – was born.

And that spirit of entrepreneurialism, made infectious by Schools Network conferences, is destined to be more important over the next 25 years, as schools need not only to improve to match the best in the world, but also need to realise the full benefits of emerging technologies and to find ways to deliver teaching and learning in a manner more fit for the early 21st century than the late 19th century.

That’s why the ‘by schools, for schools’ model is so important. With 45% of secondary schools likely to enjoy academy status by next year, the traditional local authority model is not only being displaced by the familiar chains, it is being superseded by a host of much smaller trusts, federations and other partnerships between schools across the country.

I’ll be honest: I’d have preferred if ministers had pushed a few more incentives into the system to encourage this process along. But there is no doubt that it is happening. And that spirit of entrepreneurial headship, using the best practice that they have found to work to help others to improve will be as important a part of the new school brands as the undoubtedly excellent achievements of Harris and Ark. And if there are to be real improvements in the primary sector, ministers know that this model is the only one that will deliver.

That’s not to say that these micro-networks won’t draw on wider school brands when they need to do so. But it does offer the prospect of increased insights into curriculum delivery and ICT innovation. After all, if the most successful gaming companies rely on players for their most interesting new ideas, schools and academies should be hubs of innovation in the future of learning.

For that to happen, school leaders and teachers need to take a leaf from the Finnish book, and see post-graduate practical research as an integral part of their job. Those insights – allied to what we know works with the basics – will be a crucial part of the new school brands for the future. They can become brand leaders as well as school leaders.

In its various guises, the Schools Network has been at the vanguard of schools reform over the last 25 years: the next 25 will be the years when ‘by schools, for schools’ really helps to shape our national education system for the better.

Conor Ryan, a former senior government adviser, is a writer and consultant. He blogs at http://conorfryan.blogspot.com.

Sue Williamson, Chief Executive of The Schools Network, writes about the network’s 25 year history and looks forward to the quarter century ahead:

‘In 1987, when The Schools Network was established, I was head of history in a comprehensive school in Northamptonshire.  I had been appointed to liven up the history department and make the subject more attractive to students at GCSE and ‘A’ Level.  This was before the National Curriculum and I had the challenge and the opportunity to design my own history curriculum – Professor Andy Hargreaves would describe this as the Julie Andrews curriculum – “here are a few of my favourite things”.

‘I wanted students to share my passion for history and to develop skills that they could use beyond school.  I adopted the Schools Council History Project for GCSE and drove colleagues mad by having a programme of field trips for all year groups.  There were computers in the school, but no meaningful programmes that would challenge and engage the students.

‘Twenty-five years on, I would love to return to the classroom to teach history.  I would still have a programme of field trips, but would certainly engage with other curriculum areas to ensure that the work was more project-based.  However, it would be learning technologies that could help bring history alive.

‘A class with a set of iPads and access to digital textbooks and apps would transform the teaching and learning.  Some students could develop a mastery of the subject by more in-depth work whilst others could be assisted by their peers or either in the room or around the world.  My training could be delivered on an iPod or iPad, and I could upload examples of work or ideas to my network of fellow history teachers.  However, this is assuming that the children are still coming into a building called school and are attending lessons designed as history.  I think as the next 25 years unwinds we will see a more flexible approach to schooling.

‘We are seeing more chains, federations and clusters of schools.  This gives headteachers a wonderful opportunity for innovation.  It has long been voiced that schools will open 24/7 for 365 days a year – by 2037, I think this will be a reality, and students will have blocks of time designated to be ‘in school’ with the rest of their time spent on work placements, community and global projects.  Students could also move between schools within the federation/chain.

‘Instead of an emphasis on 5 A*-C, there will be a recognition that students need more.  This would include year-round work placements that will enable them to tackle real problems and to develop the ‘soft’ skills demanded by business and industry.  There will be greater flexibility around ‘school time’ as all lessons will be on-line and have on-line support.  Assignment and tests will also be delivered and marked on-line. 

‘Throughout their ‘school life’, students will be achieving credits that are recognised by higher and further education, as well as the world of work.  Many students will be entrepreneurs and will be mentored by successful entrepreneurs and will run their business at the same time as their schooling.  The boundaries between school, work, and community will no longer exist in 2032.’

* Read Sue’s plans for the future of the network and let us know what you think

‘The decision to ask for a 7 year payback was palpably unfair to the new special academies. Using joint action involving The Schools Network, schools, politicians, governors and the DfE we have won! This is a good example of democracy resulting in a fair and proper outcome.

‘Keep fighting, it is an important battle to win.’

Roger MacKenzie, Head teacher, Priory School

Background

One issue faced by many schools following academy conversion is the status of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) and expectations of future contributions. Since the scheme relates to support staff, this issue is particularly pronounced for special schools which in general tend to have high levels of support staff, mainly teaching assistants.

 The Department for Education’s stated intention was that academies should not be financially worse off as a result of a decision to convert. Many local authorities are honouring this and are keeping academy contributions at the same level as those for other schools.

 Some local authorities however have determined that academies should make significantly higher contributions to the LGPS.

 The reasons given for this are:

• Academy Funding Agreements have no-fault break clauses after 7 years and are therefore only secure for that period of time. 
• If academies made payments at the same rates as other schools it would result in additional burdens falling on other schools as academies are less secure.
• Academies benefit from local authority central spend equivalent grant (LACSEG) funding and can use this funding to offset increased contributions to the pension scheme.
• Academies have chosen to go it alone and must take the rough with the smooth.
• These costs represent a very small proportion of total academy running costs.
• Academies are free to reduce costs by altering staff terms and conditions.

A successful test case – Priory School in Suffolk

Priory School in Suffolk, one of the first special schools to convert to academy status came up against opposition from their local authority along the lines set out above.

 After the Priory School governing body contacted their local pension authority to no avail they contacted the other new special academy in Suffolk, the Ashley School, and it was agreed that they would work together.

At this stage the schools received considerable support from their local MP David Ruffley and senior county councillors.

Priory School then sent a letter to Michael Gove expressing their concerns and received a response from Lord Hill stating that the Department for Education and the Department for Communities and Local Government would write to all local authorities clarifying the Government’s expectations.

In addition to this, The Schools Network organised a meeting of newly converted special academies on 11 Nov 2011. Officials from the DfE were at the meeting and it was made clear to them that a joint letter needed to be sent to all Local Authorities as soon as possible. The officials were very supportive of the group’s sentiments.

In January 2012 a letter was sent to all local authorities by the Government departments. Priory School and The Schools Network were asked by the DfE to ensure that all new special academies received a copy.

On 19 January 2012 Suffolk Council agreed to accept the advice of the joint letter and implement it for all academies in their area.

The Priory School has informed the DfE of Suffolk’s decision and requested that as many schools as possible should be informed of this significant decision. The Schools Network is ensuring that Priory School’s experience is being shared for the benefit of all academies.

The Schools Network, The Priory School and David Ruffley MP are willing to provide advice and guidance for any other academies which find themselves in this situation.

Priory School made the following points:

• The letter received from the Secretaries of State makes it clear that when an academy wishes to be pooled with the local authority for LGPS purposes it can be. It can therefore continue to make the same level of contributions as a maintained school.
• Lord Hill’s letter makes the point that as the academy was given assurances that it should face no significant additional pension costs it is disappointing that they are doing now.
• Lord Hill’s letter also states the Department for Education’s view that academies are no less secure than maintained schools and should have the same repayment period, as the Secretary of State has signed an open ended funding agreement with the academy.  If either party wishes to terminate the agreement, 7 years notice must be given to this effect.
• The DfE has also advised that LGPS regulations state that pension authorities should have regard as to the desirability of maintaining as nearly constant a common rate across employers as possible
• It further states that the deficit for the academy’s transferring employees should be accounted for in the academy’s deficit, as deferred or pensioner members have never been employed by the academy itself.
• LGPS contributions are a significant part of a school’s budget, particularly for special schools.

Suffolk County Council conceded these points and has agreed that both new and existing academies will have any increase in their employer contribution rate to the Pension Fund limited to a maximum of 1% of pay per year for the three years and will recover funds over a twenty year period, in line with maintained schools.

This establishes a clear precedent that academies can follow across the country.

Please let us know if you are encountering issues with your local authority on the LGPS or if you have been successful in making your case.

To help us develop this briefing further please contact: policy@theschoolsnetwork.org.uk

For help with academy conversion please contact: academies@theschoolsnetwork.org.uk

The Schools Network was set up in 1987 and for the past 25 years we have been supporting schools to shape a world class education system. We have a relentless focus on identifying, nurturing, validating and sharing best and next practice in school leadership and teaching and learning globally. We are committed to helping every child to succeed and make a valued contribution to society.

This blog celebrates some of the achievements which schools in our 5,000 strong network have achieved and looks forward to what the next 25 years might bring.

Sir Michael Wilshaw, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector has today delivered a speech setting out his vision for ensuring a good or better education for all pupils. He has launched a consultation on his proposed measures to achieve this.

Setting out detailed proposals for changes to Ofsted inspection Sir Michael restated plans for:

• The ‘Satisfactory’ and ‘Notice to Improve’ judgements to be replaced with ‘Requires Improvement’ – leading to more regular inspections.
• Schools provision will only be deemed acceptable when they are deemed Good or Outstanding. If a school is still judged as ‘Requires Improvement’ at the third inspection it will go into Special Measures.
• All school inspections to be undertaken without notice. 

He also set out plans for:

• Information about performance management in a school should be gathered as part of the inspection process so that the relationship between reward and quality of teaching in a school can be fully understood.
• Reviewing the status of some outstanding schools by selecting more schools for inspection on the basis of risk assessment, including from information gained through Parent View.
• A bar on schools being judged as Outstanding unless their teaching is Outstanding.      

He stated his principles of Outstanding Leadership as being:

• You and your senior team have to show your passion and commitment for teaching in everything you say and do
• You need to be committed to good quality professional development
• You monitor the quality of teaching effectively and ensure performance management is robust in rewarding those who teach well, and doing something about those who consistently underperform. 

Sir Michael Wilshaw said: 

“Quite simply, I believe we need radical improvements to the education system in this country. My view is that we have tolerated mediocrity for far too long – it has settled into the system.

“We have made progress.  But, the quality of educational provision isn’t improving fast enough and the gap in outcomes between the richest and the poorest isn’t closing. Without a radical change now, we will see more social and economic division in this country.” 

“Unless we have headteachers who take on the difficult challenges of schools performance and adopt a no excuses culture, we are never going to make the improvements we need.”

Ian Potter, acting Chair of The Schools Network’s National Headteacher Steering Group said:

“Sir Michael is right to focus on teaching and school leadership as the issues for improving education for young people.

“The best head teachers clearly look to challenge and improve the performance of their schools.

“School inspectors should speak plainly about the quality of education, but also harness the huge reserves of talent in the education system.   All schools can and should learn from the best practice that already exists”

 The Schools Network offers support for Outstanding Leadership in schools here: https://www.ssatrust.org.uk/leadership/middleyearshead/Pages/default.aspx 

Full details of the new proposals are available here: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/good-education-for-all