Episode 169: UK Election Imminent - What is the story for schools and funding?

Andy Psarianos

Hi, I'm Andy Psarianos.

Robin Potter

Hi, I'm Robin Potter.

Adam Gifford

Hi, I'm Adam Gifford.

Andy Psarianos

This is the School of School podcast.

Welcome to the School of School podcast.

Adam Gifford

Welcome back. It's another School of School episode, and Robin and Andy are here as well. How's things? How's things, team? Are we all good?

Robin Potter

Yes, we are.

Andy Psarianos

Good. I feel like a million dollars, million pounds, million euros. Choose your currency.

Robin Potter

A million?

Adam Gifford

He's feeling good, this is good news.

Andy Psarianos

Top drawer.

Adam Gifford

At the moment, we are in the thick here in the UK. We're in the thick of electioneering, which is always interesting, lots of promises being made, all those sorts of things. And of course, we know as part of this education inevitably gets talked about the possibility of changes in political parties and subsequently changes to curriculums, approaches, policies, and all those sorts of things start to happen. And we were just talking off-air and just saying, "What are the things that we hope they consider? Or what are the wider implications of change on a scale that central government can impart on the nation and the teaching workforce and the children?" All those sorts of things. And so, I don't know, there's no real shape to this, but just those considerations that perhaps we hope they think about, so I'm just throwing it open. That's a starter.

Andy Psarianos

Well, I can tell you what they will look at is the curriculum, because they always do and they'll say, "What's missing or what should be changed?" That's almost a given. I mean, whether or not they change anything is... But that's always what they start with. They always think that that's the problem, right? Or is the easiest thing to talk about in order to get votes is like, "There should be more of this," or, "We shouldn't be teaching our kids this," because they're highly-politicised issues. So politics, obviously, do things that are good for the politicians, so that's what they'll do.

Robin Potter

Well, they're not just going to say, "Everything's perfect, we're going to just leave it as it is." I mean, they have to come in and shake it up a bit, but do they sometimes do more damage than they could?

Andy Psarianos

Absolutely. I mean, the problem, is that the issue is rarely the curriculum, right? It's like, yeah, you can always nudge it, you can always make some changes to the curriculum. But on a whole, the issues in education, we're talking about England now or the UK, is teachers are leaving the profession at an unbelievable... We can't hire anybody, nobody wants to be a teacher, because it's basically become a horrible job, and that's what they need to deal with, right? Because you can't attract good teachers, this is not going to work. It doesn't matter what the curriculum says if you don't have good teachers, and that's just one issue. There's all kinds of issues in education that don't really get addressed, because we want to talk about the sexy thing, which is the curriculum. But if there is such a thing as a sexy thing in education.

Robin Potter

Sexy curriculum.

Andy Psarianos

Sexy curriculum. So yeah, that's what I think. I think they'll talk about the things that won't really make any big difference and they're not going to tackle the things that actually need to be fixed.

Adam Gifford

Yeah, I think I heard a really interesting quote this morning, and I wish I could remember the name of the guy that coined it, because it's something that I guess has been referred to many times. And it goes something along the lines of, "There's no problem during electioneering if politician's telling the truth. The problem is you don't get voted in after you've done that." And I think that this is the case, is that really... If you just tell people your child goes to school for a longer school day or they do more maths or they do the times tables, or we should have more of this in the curriculum, and you present that as, "Then all problems will be solved. Societal problems will be solved, education standards will be fantastic, everything will win," then clearly, clearly, you're missing the point, which is I guess what you're saying, Andy, because the real truth is that there's so many things broken and we know that, because of the number of people who are leaving the profession.

And we've said this in previous podcasts, one of the latest surveys... This is government-funded survey, by the way, this isn't just a random selection of feedback from people. This is the government's workforce survey. One in 10 first year teachers leaving, something's broken. And I think that if you then say to them, "All right, your job is that hard," that 10% of people are willing to put themselves in debt to train as a teacher, go through the years to train as a teacher, then go in and give a year's practise and still leave. If you then say to them, "Right now, we're going to have more changes on top of that and we're going to just..." We're going to frame it in a way that says, "And it's as simple as this. If you just do more of this or you do your times tables," or something... And yeah, I'm being a bit flippant here, but there's an element of truth in it that all will be fine. Except it's not, except it's not. And I think that that's the thing that is deeply frustrating.

I always find when these issues get talked about, which they tend to more often during electioneering cycle, is where's the truth that admits there are some fundamental fractures in our education system that we should be really, really concerned about? Because I think if we need to turn people out, if we are going to try... When they say, "We need to get so many teachers in really quickly," it takes a while to become a good teacher. It takes a long time to train to be a teacher, you can't just magic them, just find something. We'll go and buy them from the shop.

And the danger is that if you try to speed up that process, the only thing you can do is lessen the amount of training, make it easier to get all of those things that have the potential to not have high quality practitioners in the classroom that are resilient enough to deal with the types of things that are going on in our classrooms. And so it really worries me when the inevitable sound bites that aim for the hearts of parents and caregivers, "Here's the easy fix in education." I mean, we know better than that, but it's a tough one.

Andy Psarianos

So there's some big misconceptions within politicians' minds maybe... You never really know. Do they know the truth and they're just deliberately not telling it? Or do they just not actually know? And you don't really know. You don't know. What's their motivation for telling you something that's not really going to be true? We know they do it, we know why they do it, but we don't actually know if they do know the truth. And there's some huge misconceptions. Misconception number one, you can actually make a significant change by adding things to the curriculum. Yeah, no. Not really, right? If your curriculum was absolutely horrible, yeah, maybe, but it isn't, right? The curriculum's okay. Is it perfect? No, it's never going to be perfect. Is it okay? It's okay. All right. Adding more stuff isn't going to make it better. Adding more stuff's just probably going to just overwhelm everybody, right?

Because it's already pretty packed, so that's a misconception. The other misconception is that teaching is easy and it's like a growth mindset versus a fixed mindset idea. You're either a natural teacher or you're not. Yeah, that's rubbish. It's absolute rubbish. Teaching, like any real profession, takes years of crafting to get really good at it. When you look at amazing teachers, there's always been a continuous journey of learning for them over the years. They have a growth mindset themselves, they see they're always constantly looking to improve their own practise through professional development, through observations, through just sheer just thought experiments and reflection on their own practise, you get better. It's like anything else. Same is true for, I don't know, pick anything. A musician, right? You got to work at it, right? You got to work, it takes a lot of effort. Or a great basketball player or a great plumber, right?

It just doesn't just naturally happen, you have to put effort into it. So that's another misconception, and those are the things that we meddle with all the time. But the problems in education in England, like most places, is all systemic. It's the system that's broken, it's like the accountability versus the rewards versus the, "How does money get cycled through and where does it get spent?" And all these types of things are where the real problems lie, but people don't want to tackle those things. And there are hugely bureaucratic processes involved in education, and when you look at... Okay, the government spends... I don't know, I don't remember the exact numbers, but it's somewhere in the neighbourhood on average of like 7,000 pounds every year for every school that's in education, okay? Let's just, for argument's sake, call it 7,000. I might be totally off, but I think it's seven brown, 7,000 pounds.

So that's how much taxpayer money goes for every child into the education system, okay? Now, how much of that actually ends up in the hands of something that actually helps that child learn? I can guarantee you that it's not nearly as much as you think it should be. If you ask a man on the street, right? Stops the ministry, say, "Okay, you have contributed this much towards educating a child, how much of that should actually directly go towards educating that child and how much of it should go towards administrative and bureaucratic processes?" The answer they give you in the reality are... I can guarantee you're going to be very different.

Robin Potter

So why is that?

Andy Psarianos

It's the system, right? Because systems evolve and they get more complex and then costs get syphoned into all kinds of places, and no one wants to tackle that.

Adam Gifford

And I think, too, so much has left to chance, Robin. So what I mean by that is that if any of us, and I know we've talked about this before, said, "All right, what's the trajectory for a teacher in over a 15-year period so they're at a point where they can share their expertise at a significant level across a wide range of practitioners?" Because that would be reasonable, right? You have a profession, you get people to expert level, so they can then support the next generation that will go through. So that's a reasonable cycle in any profession. So if we were to say, "What's that trajectory for a surgeon?" I suspect that all of us could even have a guess at what that might be. You might do a bit of anaesthetics and you might do a bit of A&E and a bit of general practise and all these sorts of things.

You'd need to have a go at that before you start doing heart surgery. You know what I mean? All of us could have a guess. Well, what's a teacher? Well, you go and you go into the classroom and you go there for as long as it takes, and you hope that a structure's being put in place in your school, but you don't know what that structure is. There's no core elements to it, you don't know exactly how long you should be doing each of these elements. And I think that's the thing, is that... That's what I mean about chance, is that the whole system is set up in a way that we get to a point where we say, "Yes, you're a graduate teacher. We'll look after you in the first year." Then the rest of it you decide for yourselves and we'll see how that works and we'll see how that goes and we'll see whether you're in a position to support your colleagues when you get to that argue expert levels in senior leadership, and there isn't clear outcomes.

And so where does the money go? Well, we're not sure exactly, because each school decides on how they spend it. There's no clear paths. And if you look at top-performing jurisdictions in education, there is a very clear structure to the development that leads right the way through with the intention of supporting those who come through with a really good skillset of expertise. But because that takes so much time, then we don't seem to think that that's a really valid and worthwhile thing to do as a system. Of course, schools do it. Of course, they do, and they can be really clear on what they do, but that's down to the school. And I think within our system, it's about, "Just get as many teachers through to qualified status as quickly as possible," which you're going to need, right? Because so many of them are leaving so quickly.

And if it's not in their first year, have a look at the stats over, say, five years. I think I said to you that I saw a scary stat that only 2% of teachers at the moment strongly agree that they'd like to go into school leadership. 2%, that's terrifying. And most of them probably feel like they're not equipped to do it, which is reasonable again, because it's left to chance. So if your school isn't implementing things over years to develop that capacity with the intention of running schools, then it's no wonder. It's no wonder. And I just think that it's these things that instead of... And maybe it's slightly disingenuous for me to say politicians aren't telling the truth, but they're certainly not giving a very clear indication. No one is standing on the doorstep currently during this election cycle and saying, "Right, we know that teachers are leaving in droves. We know this, we know this, we know this. We know we've broken this, we've broken that." They'll be concentrating on, "These are the quick fixes that can ensure that your child will be okay in the world."

Instead of recognising that actually, "No, there isn't a quick fix here and we'll probably have to work cross party and we'll probably have to do it over decades." That will be reasonable. It's not going to happen.

Andy Psarianos

Okay, I'm going to blow your minds, right? While you guys are talking. And by the way, you're absolutely right, Adam. I just actually looked up the numbers, okay?

Robin Potter

I figured you would.

Andy Psarianos

Sorry.

Robin Potter

Yes.

Andy Psarianos

Well, I was paying attention to what you were saying and it was very clever. On a per pupil basis, the total funding to be allocated to schools for five to 16-year-olds in cash terms, in 2024, '25 is 7,690 pounds per pupil, which is a lot of money. So how much is that per classroom? 230,000 pounds per classroom is spent. How much of that actually goes into what the teacher has to do with the kids?

Robin Potter

Obviously, it's very low.

Andy Psarianos

Paying the teacher, renting the room, teaching the kids, and the materials that they use. 230,000 pounds per year. That doesn't sound like a small chunk of change to me.

Adam Gifford

You expect massive amounts being spent on the kids, particularly because you go, "All right, well, it's just argument's sake, teachers way." Let's just say they're a highly qualified teacher, 40, 50,000 a year, so you've still got lots left. God, hit us with the figure that's going to make us go... Yeah, so now we've got 150-

Andy Psarianos

Nearly 200,000 pounds per classroom left after you paid the teacher, like 190,000 pounds left. After you paid the teacher, right? Okay.

Robin Potter

Yeah.

Andy Psarianos

Where did all that money go? So all of it gets somewhere, it gets spent. Wait a minute, should we be looking at that? Should we be looking at that? If I were a businessman, that's the first thing I would look at. I would say, "Wait a minute, you guys got 230,000 pounds to teach that classroom. Where did that money go? Because now you're telling me, 'Well, I can't do...'" Somewhere, all this money is being syphoned off.

Robin Potter

Right. It's not getting into the classroom, it's not that they're taking advantage of this.

Andy Psarianos

So if I look at the numbers, the best numbers that I know of, because this is spurious, hard to find these details sometimes. 70% of the money gets spent on salaries. Salaries, pensions, and benefits of that chunk of change. It ain't the teacher's salary, right? Teacher ain't making that much money, okay? So whose salary are we paying here, right? 20% goes towards what we'll call capital, the building, electricity, gas, keeping the lights on, and about 10% is in the classroom. Why is nobody talking about this? Why is nobody talking about this? We're talking about, "Let's add," I don't know, "This thing to the curriculum," or, "Maybe we spend too much time on teaching," blah de blah or... Hold on, so all those people that are having those conversations and drawing paychecks for it and creating research documents, and whatever it is that... Wherever this money is going, QUANGO organisations and... They're all being funded from this pot of education money, right? The department for education, huge amounts of staff, and blah de blah de blah.

All this money is being syphoned off the top, right? Meanwhile, schools are crying that they don't have enough money to buy bananas for the kids, right? And no one's saying, "Hey, where did all that money go?" There was a really big stack of money somewhere, there was a really big stack of money. It was like 230,000 pounds per classroom, that was the stack of money. The government's saying, "Hey, come on. We're giving you guys tonnes of money, what are you complaining about?" They're saying, "We have no money." It's like, why is nobody saying, "Hey, where did all the money go?" Maybe that's what the politicians should think about tackling.

Robin Potter

Yeah, that's such a great point.

Andy Psarianos

It's a big stack of money, right?

Robin Potter

That's my question, too, though. So if 70% is going towards salaries and pensions, et cetera, then-

Andy Psarianos

Salaries, pensions, and benefits. Whatever that is.

Robin Potter

Whatever that is. So is the government holding that back and saying, "Okay, so now here is your 30% and 20 of it's going towards paying the electricity bill." It's not like they're... Are they not giving the schools the money that's allocated to each child upfront?

Andy Psarianos

Well, I think if you asked the school, "Are you getting $230,000 for each classroom that you teach?" They would say nowhere near that. I don't know how much they're getting, but that's how much taxpayer money is being spent per child, right? The wording on... This is the government gov UK website. It says, "On a per pupil basis, the total funding to be allocated to schools for five to 16-year-olds in cash terms in 2024, '25 is 7,690 pounds. A 49% increase compared to the 5,180 allocated per pupil in 2010 and '11." Okay? So it's increased by 49%. And then it says, "After adjusting for inflation, funding per pupil was broadly flat between 2010, '11, and 2015, '16, and about 7,200 pounds in 2023, 2024 prices. So what they're saying is like... Okay, that's the money that they're spending, they've even calculated for inflation and everything, so schools are getting almost 8,000 pounds per pupil.

But that's what they're saying. They're saying, "Funding to be allocated to schools," okay? I don't know what that means, but I can guarantee that's not what the schools are getting. So where's all the money going? Why don't we talk about that, because teachers aren't getting it. I can guarantee you the numbers that I said was 70% on... So what's 70% of 230,000? Come on, quick mental calculation, guys. Is that what teachers get paid? Right, so wait a minute here, wait a minute. Where's the money going? Because it's not going in the classroom. So maybe that's what they should be talking about instead of talking about, "Why don't we add this thing to the geography curriculum or remove this from the math curriculum?" Or, "We need to spend more time on this." Yeah.

Adam Gifford

Yeah.

Andy Psarianos

That's what you want the government to sort out. You want the experts to talk about the curriculum. I don't care what Joe Blogs in minister of whatever sitting in some seat in House of Parliament thinks about whether fractions should be taught before decimals. I couldn't care less what his opinion is, because I know he hasn't got a clue, right? And if he's bringing any opinions to the table, it's only opinions. It's not based on any fact or research or knowledge. I don't care. What I want him to do in office is to figure out where the hell that money went and account for it.

Adam Gifford

Absolutely. And I wonder, in those... That first stage of central funding and when that money goes. I wonder how much of that money would be to review the system itself and to make better teachers. And I don't think there'd be much, I think that a lot of the money will be, "Okay, there's going to be a lot of subject-specific things, which is..." You could argue is okay, maybe. But I think exactly the point that you're making, Andy, I completely agree, is that it is a huge amount of money. Yet throwing more money at it is clearly not working. If you've increased... Like a 50% increase, that's a lot. That is a huge amount of taxpayers money, massive amounts. So if it's not working, like you're saying, what is it that's syphoning off this... What is centrally funded? So it's definitely not coming to the schools directly, so it's already missed or gone somewhere else.

What's the effectiveness of what's happening there? How much is it? And clearly, if you've got a workforce that is in dire straits, children not being taught... And we're talking thousands of classrooms that are not being taught by teachers and we're putting that sort of money into it, that's inexcusable. How does a system... How does that happen? Because you clearly got enough for a teacher, like 200 grand per classroom, that pays for a qualified-

Andy Psarianos

You've got enough for rent, you've got enough for teachers, you've got enough for materials, you've got enough for every... All the money is there, right? For the classroom, but only a fractions you get into the classroom. And okay, here's another mindblowing statistic. In the Western world, in the Western world, so this is real generalisation. I'm talking about Canada, United States, England, everywhere else, on average, roughly speaking here, I could find the stats, I don't have them right here in front of me, but what I have from memory, a teacher spends about 500 pounds, $800 of their own money every year to buy stuff for the kids. Now, come on. Come on. Come on, government. Wake up. Please. No wonder they're leaving.

Thank you for joining us on the School of School podcast.