Counting the cost of a fragmented school system

Sara Bubb. 

In an effort to turn schools into academies too little attention has been given to constructing a middle tier oversight system that is fair and efficient for all.

This is an unescapable conclusion of our new study, Understanding the Middle Tier: Comparative Costs of Academy and LA-maintained Systems, which has uncovered the cost of England’s systems for overseeing academies and local authority (LA) schools. We found a complex and confusing picture that reinforces the Public Accounts Committee judgement that the Department for Education’s ‘arrangements for oversight of schools are fragmented and incoherent, leading toinefficiency for government and confusion for schools.’

The ‘middle tiers’ are the systems of support and accountability connecting publicly-funded schools and academies with the DfE – functions that were formerly carried out for all state schools by local authorities (LAs).

We found inequity: the middle tier functions for academies cost 44% more than for LA-maintained schools in 2016/17 (latest available data). The overall cost of the middle tier for the academy system was £687.4m or £167.05 per pupil, compared to £524.4m or £115.71 per pupil for the LA school system.

The difference can largely be explained by extra grants provided to multi-academy trusts (MATs) for functions previously undertaken by LAs. The top-slicing of academy budgets by MATs further increases the available funding for senior leadership posts to undertake middle tier functions. These leadership posts have not only increased in number but salaries have been unregulated. This has led to headline-hitting figures, such as those for Harris Federation’s CEO, whose salary without on-costs was £440,000 in 2016/17. Perhaps this is a reason why large MATs (11+ academies) did not demonstrate the economies of scale that might be expected. Academies belonging to these large trusts had the highest cost per pupil.

We identified middle tier functions under four main headings of finance, accountability, access and people. In simple terms, these were carried out by LAs for all schools before the policy of large-scale academisation was introduced in 2010. In 2016/17 70% of schools were LA-maintained and 30% academies but the proportions have changed. 60% of schools are now overseen by the 152 LAs and 40% are academies overseen by the Education and Skills Funding Agency, the Regional Schools Commissioners and by 1,183 multi-academy trusts and 1,608 single academy trusts.

Assessing the comparative costs of the middle tiers has been extremely complex and difficult. The Department for Education (DfE) does not publish information about the costs of middle tier functions performed by its agencies and refused our Freedom of Information requests. It is clear that greater efficiency, fairness and transparency are needed in the funding and oversight of England’s school system.

The research report by Sara Bubb Associates was commissioned and part-funded by the Local Government Association, but its content expresses the independent evidence-based views of its authors: Dr Sara Bubb, Jonathan Crossley-Holland, Julie Cordiner, Dr Susan Cousin and Professor Peter Earley.

 

 

 

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in Schools
2 comments on “Counting the cost of a fragmented school system
  1. Jonathan Crossley-Holland says:

    I was also a member of the team.What was striking was how the 776 MATs have led to a massive diversion of funding and effort into senior leadership posts-not just CEO roles but finance, school improvement etc and placed big additional demands upon volunteers to provide effective governance thro’ Trust Boards. Many MATs seem to be doing good work but a review is needed of their cost effectiveness,which looks at pupil outcomes, collaboration with other schoold,accountability to local communities,inclusiveness and costs. It ought to give pause for thought that apparently no other leading system has adopted this model

  2. I recommend the authors of this vital research visit the Local Schools Network where the efforts of Janet Downes to unearth the detail of what is really happening in our school system add greatly to this discussion. Doing so will confirm that “Assessing the comparative costs of the middle tiers has been extremely complex and difficult” exactly because there has been a deliberate and undemocratic policy pursued by the present and previous governments to deny the public rightful access to the facts. To do so would reveal the extent of the problems and underline the many reasons why, as Jonathan Crosley-Holland so rightly states “apparently no other leading system has adopted this model”. Though I would suggest the model developed in the US is influential in driving many of the structural changes we ‘suffer’ from in the UK. The writing of Nancy Bailey is very helpful in understanding this connection.
    https://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/
    https://nancyebailey.com/

Leave a Reply to Jonathan Crossley-Holland Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

UCL Institute of Education

This blog is written by academics at the UCL Institute of Education.

Our blog is for anyone interested in current issues in education and related social sciences.
Keep up with the latest IOE research
IOE Tweets

Enter your email address and we'll let you know when a new post is published

Join 39,381 other followers

%d bloggers like this: