Earlier this week we had the first King’s Speech of the new government, as well as a livestream discussion involving new education secretary Bridget Phillipson the evening before, and then the day following came an announcement of the curriculum review to be spearheaded by the chief executive of the Education Endowment Foundation, in Professor Becky Francis. All of this sits upon a backdrop of not announcing a decision regarding teachers pay award, asilence regarding the pause of the defunding of level 3 provision, with an intervention from Gordon Brown and Lord Sainsbury urging the party to continue essentially ‘full steam ahead’, and revised forecasts showing that the previously expected fall in numbers progressing through primary education might not actually be the case – adding some concern regarding the previously expected flexibility in the DFE budget. 

A lot of the burning questions in the sector, such as those mentioned, but also ‘Ofsted Reform’ were not present within the bills announced – which isn’t surprising as these are generally centred around the promises within the manifesto that are essentially ‘ready to go’. There is some disappointment by the omission of the HE sector – particularly prior discussions from Bridget Phillipson that the sectors financial concerns are a day one task. In total there are two direct bills relating to education, as well as a number of others which will have some effect on the sector – I will touch upon a number of these in this post.

The Children’s Wellbeing Bill

The parts of this bill can be classified in one of three ways;

1) Quick measures of addressing cost of living and absolute poverty.

2) A ‘flag in the sand’ of the Government’s ideology towards schooling.

3) Legal and safeguarding responsibilities.

1) Quick measures of addressing cost of living and absolute poverty.

Statistics show that 1 in 4 children are living in absolute poverty as of 2023, and the cost-of-living crisis has led to many more difficulties. The bill introduces some school related measures to address aspects of this. First is the access to free Breakfast Clubs for Primary School students – such that all children will start the day with an appropriate meal. The other is related to limits on branded uniform and equipment – aiming to reduce costs for parents – with the spoken aim of reducing barriers of entry for activities, sporting teams, clubs and societies for young people. Primary years are so vital to childhood development and young people’s relationship with school, making sure that young people are nourished and in a position to learn is a a fantastic use of funding in my personal opinion. Whilst minor, the branded uniform aspect of things is a token nod to the cost of living crisis and a minor aid for parents. The second justification about extra-curricular activities doesn’t really ring true – ‘branded equipment’ is not the issue in parents being able to afford the costs of peripatetic music lessons – and whilst I am very much open to be proven wrong, parental purchase of branded ‘sports team kit’ is not something that I am aware of being particularly widespread. However, it’s a starting point. A quick symbol, that should have some positive effect on parents and young people. 

2) A ‘flag in the sand’ of the Government’s ideology towards schooling.

The majority of the bill falls within the second category, they are a signal of the priorities of the new government, and their ethos they want within the education system. A number of the key takeaways relate to the academies system. First is the commitment to the national curriculum – such that all academies must now be required to follow the national curriculum in its entirety. This brings subjects such as Computing back to the forefront of recruitment needs – as there is a requirement for an aspect of Key Stage 4 study – which after its ‘emphasis’ under previous governments (as opposed to IT), it became a possibility for institutions under the academy umbrella to sidestep the recruitment issues of appropriate expertise by not offering up to KS4 – this no longer remains a possibility once the bill is implemented. This will be a huge challenge for the sector to attract the expertise required with current wages – however, as a whole I think this is somewhat of a positive move. I have spoken a few times about the repositioning of governments as the ‘customer’ and not ‘provider’ of education for its citizens – I think this is a step in the right direction – you have cultivated this ‘national curriculum’, you should therefore want your ‘nation’ to study it. I will stress that this is not a comment on the suitability or appropriateness of the content and form of the current national curriculum.

 Secondly is the bringing of Multi-Academy Trusts under the Ofsted inspection framework. There is no confirmation of how this will exactly look – currently the individual schools are inspected and Ofsted also do ‘Summary Evaluations’ on the Trusts as a whole – however, as things stand, very few of these have actually been completed. This ultimately needs fleshed out more for core evaluations to be made. But it is a clear ‘flag in the sand‘ to the academy systems that there is going to be a greater level of scrutiny under this government than the one previous. That whatever the previous Labour government envisaged with the academies system when it was introduced, the current one seems potentially uneasy with what they have become – and even if the new system is just a variation of the ‘Summary Evaluation’, referring it as part of the ‘inspection framework’ is adding a different emphasis than what went before.

Taking this even further, the bill proposes that all independent/private schools will fall under the same Ofsted inspection framework – currently not all do, a number of institutions falling under the remit of the Independent Schools Inspectorate. Again this is a stamp of ethos and an increased approach of standardisation across different areas of the sector.

A final aspect of the bill that falls in this category is regarding Qualified Teacher Status – such that any new teacher entering the classroom either has QTS or is working towards this. Again, this is bringing an aspect of consistency across all of the different state school systems, whether local authority or academy system – although clarity is yet to be provided if this also incorporates FE where the requirement of QTS was also lifted in 2013. Interestingly the wording suggests that this is not going to be applied retrospectively, however the teaching community have raised issues that it has the potential to ‘trap’ these teachers in position, as it’s likely to be a defacto ‘hiring ban’ on those without QTS moving forward, following implementation – so mechanisms will need to be in place to provide the support to allow these staff members to achieve QTS on the job.

3) Legal and safeguarding responsibilities.

The third category, which actually makes up the largest part of the bill is relating to legal and safeguarding responsibilities and approaches – such as a promise of providing greater powers to investigate teacher misconduct across all stages (which suggests bringing FE and skills training providers in-line with schools). There is an emphasis on SEND inclusion, giving local authorities greater powers of placing students – and that all schools must cooperate with local authorities over this. This has been accompanied by a number of inclusion think pieces, including a very divisive article from Anna Fazackerley in The Observer this weekend,

There are proposals of a ‘not in school register’. This part of the bill is something that within the media has been reported as a means of addressing attendance concerns – whether this is sloppy journalism, genuine misunderstanding or an attempt at spin is unclear, as instead this proposal seems to borrow from a bill previously put forward by the last Government, and will instead focus on registering Home Schooled students. A lot of what this seems to do is already covered elsewhere, it won’t address anything regarding enrolled students who are not attending school and the learning and safeguarding concerns that coincide with that.

The draft posits there are currently 92,000 young people deregistered from schools and being Home Schooled. A recent survey from Learn What You Live, of the parents of secondary aged home schooled parents found that 1 in 6 felt under pressure to make the decision to deregister their child from either their school or local education authority, 2 in 5 felt at risk of being fined due to low attendance,and 29% did not want to make the decision to home educate at the time. There are challenges with regards youth services, SEND provision in schools, and access to specialist institutions and provision where required to support the young people and families who feel boxed out of the formal education provisions the country provides. Without addressing this it feels like a rearranging of where data is recorded – not a practical change.

It could be argued this could be tying back to bigger agenda of ‘inclusion’ – however, those aspects need to be addressed for this to be the case. The information of students who deregister is already logged and recorded – what is going to be different about this way? Proponents may argue it could provide scope to attempt a deeper dive into children entirely missing from the education system, to find these young people – but concrete explanations of how that would work would need to follow – this could see it tying in with another aspect of the bill, which will provide Ofsted a greater set of powers to investigate investigate institutions they suspect to be illegally operating as unregistered independent schools – where there are no assurances of safeguarding or quality of education in place. This is another aspect of the blanket introduction of independent schools into the Ofsted system – but would definitely require additional funding for the institution.

What isn’t here?

Whilst mentioned within the speech, the removal of the VAT exemption on private school fees is absent from the bill – as they are exploring the avenue of this. Similarly, the recruitment of 6,500 teachers which accompanied that mention is also not there – as it is not something that requires legislation to achieve. Interestingly, from the manifesto the references to this policy have altered somewhat. Within the manifesto the promise read “6,500 new expert teachers in key subjects” – this has subsequently watered down to simply “6,500 new teachers” in post-election mentions I have seen from the party itself (the cynic may also look to the QTS related policy of current teachers gaining QTS as a potential way of massaging this figure if needs be). A number of other aspects from the manifesto were not discussed, such as reforming of Ofsted grading judgements and mental health practitioners, as well as the curriculum review that has since been announced. Returning to the VAT exemption, in the manifesto, these were the policies that the change was costed to fund – which gives an explainer as to why a number of things from the manifesto weren’t part of this bill at this stage;

There are a lot of people jostling for influence within the sector currently, there are also a lot of ‘takes’ from either social media or traditional media that are sometimes accepted as fact, or as a starting point of conversation. Yes, it’s true that policy is sometimes leaked out, yes there are people within the inner-circle drip feeding narratives as well, however I am trying to focus on the official documentation and promises provided by the Government. For example, a number of the discussions I have seen regarding the ‘Ofsted grading reform’ seem to be expecting a much larger change than what is being proposed (discussed in this previous post analysing the manifesto promises of each party ), this also leads to confusion from others as to why additional responsibilities are being brought into Ofsted’s remit before these changes are being made. Labour were very clear in their manifesto that they support the institution of Ofsted, the reform is not going to be a ‘tearing up’ of what was there before – the main argument for the ‘inspection regime has been broken’ was that with 90% of schools rated Good or Outstanding, the one-word judgement lacks an element of nuance and information about school performance required for stakeholders to make appropriate inference about institutions. I do feel a lot of people have the potential to be sorely disappointed when that is eventually tackled.

Another small pocket of excitement manifested due the use of ‘knowledge and skills’ within the documentation – after the last Government’s ‘knowledge rich curriculum’ that ‘skills might be back’. Although, again, it’s not something to read too much into at this stage (whatever side of the fence you are on), as use of both ‘knowledge and skills’ has been part of the previous 2 King/Queen’s speeches.

Skills England Bill

The main aspect of this legislation is obviously the named public body of “Skills England”. It has been confirmed to be taking certain functions from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) that was launched in 2017, which helps develop and review the content for technical qualifications (such as the launched T-Levels) as well as ongoing and new apprenticeship standards. IfATE has been built as predominantly employer led, whereas the bill proposes potential for a wider pool of expertise involved with Skills England, aiming to make use of devolution to target the skills needs of a region. The legislation proposes; businesses, providers, national government, devolved Mayoral Combined Authorities and trade unions will all be involved within the system – aiming to react quicker and better for local and regional skills needs. What will become of IfATE is still to be seen.

Some of the issues that arise when we have ‘feet around the table’ like this is that by the nature of what this type of thing is, it is people with power, and connections – particularly when looking at business representatives – who end up in the position of influence, who will discuss skills needs and gaps of their sector. With the utmost respect, these are quite often the people who are so far removed from the ‘day to day’ operations of the technical vocation they represent, that leads to rather skewed perceptions of what qualifications require. A prime example of this can be seen within the T-Levels of Construction and Built Environment. The first component in the specification relates to ‘Health & Safety’, it’s logical, in order to be ‘on-site’ you need to pass your HS&E health and safety test – and the T Level has a requirement for a 45 day occupational placement. However the health and safety component of the T level does not involve practical support and learning content towards the HS&E – instead focuses on the effects of the legislation, legal concepts of liability and ‘top down’ implementation of H&S – is this the most pertinent and relevant focus for this curriculum? This is why it’s so important that we get on the ground educators, and those involved in the day to day vocations around the table as part of the decision making process for qualifications.

The bill will also allow greater flexibility of usage for the apprenticeship/skills levy payments. If this maps up to the promises of the manifesto this will be a relaxation of what the fund can be spent on by large scale employers, with opportunities to fund smaller scale and more reactive traineeships – which aligns with the links to devolution and being able to react quickly to regional needs. There have been some concerns raised that this change will allow for larger employers to recoup more of their levy payments, which in turn will reduce the amount that is currently ‘gifted’ to small and medium employers, to cover their contribution of funding an apprentice. Under the current system when a small/medium enterprise, who do not pay the apprenticeship levy take an apprentice they are responsible for 5% of the fees, with 95% coming from central government. However, levy payers can gift a proportion of their leftover levy to cover the contribution of a non-levy payer (particularly to SME’s that are partners or within their supply chain) – about 40% of apprenticeship starts are within SME’s – there are some concerns that this scheme may actually reduce the availability of high level apprenticeships across the board, as SME’s may not be in the position to cover the costs directly, and flexibility in how the funding can be used will 

The bill also suggests that Skills England will work incredibly closely with the Migration Advisory Committee – to help identify shortage areas that currently require significant migration to cover, such as the health & social care sector, with the hope that we will be able to cover the skills needs through domestic training and skills. This is also a time to pause and reflect that often there is a conflation between a skills gap and a recruitment gap. What employers may view as a skills gap, is actually a difficulty of recruitment due to inability to match the market, or choices of those to leave the sector, something that is often the case with the social care sector, for example. It is vital in building these qualifications this is addressed – qualifications will not be a fix for everything – it’s not just skills, it’s pay, it’s conditions.

What isn’t here?

There were mentions in the manifesto of support for 18-21 year olds accessing apprenticeships, training or employment – which is not referenced directly within the bill. One of the key areas of disappointment for the sector was the lack of mention for the pause of the level 3 reforms. Whilst in opposition this was discussed by the party – however, to reiterate something that I have mentioned before, this was never part of the manifesto promises. Therefore to be honest it was not something I was directly expecting – as they had not given commitment to this in an official position. It should be noted that due to pressure from the sector this is being reviewed outside of the aforementioned curriculum and assessment review being spearheaded by Professor Becky Francis. Rumours are swirling of an announcement being imminent around this.

One of the major concerns with the level 3 reform is that we aren’t strictly replacing like for like. A lot of the key buzzwords are still being used about ‘aligning’ provision, which I think is actually quite dangerous as there is the potential to reduce the ability of students to progress through levels by making homogenous qualification standards. T Levels are not direct replacements of the Applied General qualifications that existed before. I recently saw an explanation that I feel is absolutely perfect to explain this, T Levels are not vocational qualifications – they are occupational qualifications, which I feel is a very elegant way of putting it. There are scaling issues that come with T Levels, which isn’t the case for BTEC’s. This year in-particular is a catalyst year, with qualifications relating to plumbing and electrical engineering/installation losing funding, with the inability to scale the T Level proving to be an issue for many centres.

What else should we be aware of? – As Employers/Institutions

• Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill: This will introduce Martyn’s Law – which will require venues have a legal obligation towards security preparedness against terrorism. Venues will include schools, colleges and university settings within the legislation. Some centres, particularly college and universities will already have aspects of this within their risk register, but the bill will require training, information sharing and a clear actionable and embedded preparedness plan in case of attack. 
• Employment Rights Bill: The School Support Staff Negotiating Body will be reinstated after its abolishment in 2010. The aim is to provide collective bargaining to establish national terms, conditions and pay, and progression routes for support staff in schools across the country. There will be an update of trade union legislation, which will remove certain restrictions, including the recent changes by the previous Government regarding minimum service levels during industrial action – which had the prospect of affecting education’s ability for large scale industrial action. Finally there is increased workers rights – around flexible working becoming a default – as well as access to benefits and protections from day one of employment – which may change the approaches of certain employers within the sector.
• Equality (Race and Disability) Bill: This bill will enshrine in law the full right to equal pay for ethnic minorities and disabled people. Much like what is the case with male/female pay divide, employers with more than 250 employees will be required to report on pay gaps relating to ethnicity and disability – in order to identify them, that they exist, and how to tackle them. The capacity will likely not affect the standard school, but could encompass large scale trusts, the Further Education and Universities sector. 
• Crime and Policing Bill: With thousands of young people vulnerable to child criminal exploitation, and particularly knife crime has sen a 7% rise across the last year, An anti-social behavioural lead will be put in place across all local authorities, who will coordinate across all of the services – including schools and colleges where appropriate.

What else should we be aware of? – For Young People

• Better Buses Bill: This bill will provide local leaders greater powers to franchise bus services, and lift the restriction on public ally owned bus providers. They include data that 25% of all bus travel in the country is related to attending school or education – and in areas such as Newcastle, approximately 40% of households are reliant on public transport entirely. Having seen the disruptions of a 2 month long bus strike this academic year, greater powers for the state to provide service to those in need is a definite plus if used correctly.
• Renter’s Rights Bill: Lots within this bill at tackling cost of living and providing additional support for families, adding preventative measures against no fault evictions. The proposals for the bill are to improve the conditions in which renters are experiencing, within 21% of housing being ‘non-decent’ and 12% featuring the like damp and/or mould.
• Employment Rights Bill: For those of us working within the post-16 sector there is a key promise of ending exploitative zero-hour contracts that are based around single . As more young people are turning to employment alongside their studies, often they are at whims of employers regarding shifts, that can affect their educational progress. This should hopefully give them a bit more power and security for families.
• Mental Health Bill: A long-term proposed change in the mental health act. It will remove police stations and prisons as ‘places of safety’ under the legislation (which often provides skewed optics and priorities when working with those undergoing a mental health crisis. More than half of the new detainees under the mental health act in 22/23 were under the age of 17 – which black people more than 3 times likely to be detained, and 8 times likely to be placed on a Community Treatment Order. This bill aims to amend the threshold for incarceration, with more targeted support.
• Conversion Therapy Bill: The bill categorically labels conversion therapy as abuse. The proposal is for a full, trans-inclusive ban on conversion therapy practices.
• Tobacco and Vapes Bill: Vaping has really found a foothold with the younger generations. A point of conversation between myself and colleagues is that there are students who underage vape who would never have been underage smokers. With regards vapes the proposals are to limit branding and advertising that is coercive to young people – instead a pivot to vapes as an aid to quit smoking, not as a stand-alone product of its own.  The main crux of the legislation is to introduce a progressive smoking ban. Children born after the 1st of January 2009 will never be able to legally buy smoking products. In many eyes this is highly controversial, however a variety of statistics have been provided within the draft – smoking is still the largest cause of preventable deaths in the UK, children of smokers are 3 times more likely to smoke than those who aren’t, which has a large socio-economic effect, continuing a cycle of deprivation – with prevalence at its highest in the most deprived areas.

Hopefully you found this breakdown useful. There has been much speculation and opinion pieces recently it’s difficult to know exactly where things stand. I have therefore, much like when viewing the election promises, went straight to the official documentation. In the election build-up, if it wasn’t in the manifesto it didn’t matter to me, it’s the same thing here. Yes I’ve included elements of analysis of the proposals, but I have tried to avoid speculation of hypotheticals as far as I can.

A 5.5% pay award has recently been proposed for teachers in primary and secondary since I started writing this. FE have raised voices for concern, as they are not part of this, and teacher pay in the sector is already on average £10,000 lower than primary/secondary. There are a lot of challenges ahead, and I suspect it is going to be a very busy summer.