Cost-effective advisor encourages struggling school to reduce expenses.
Introduction:
A government cost-cutter recommended that Harlow Academy, a special school for severely disabled pupils, reduce its staffing spend by £150,000 just months before it was closed due to safety concerns. The school, which was found to have “disturbing” levels of neglect by Ofsted, received this recommendation from a school resource management adviser. However, the chief executive of the Nexus Multi-Academy Trust, which now runs the school, argued that the recommendation was “woefully over-simplistic” and that the school required additional funding to meet the needs of its pupils.
Full Article: Cost-effective advisor encourages struggling school to reduce expenses.
The Troubled History of Harlow Academy: Government Adviser Recommends Staffing Cuts Before Closure
Once upon a time, there was a special school called Harlow Academy that catered to severely disabled pupils. However, its troubled history came to light when a government cost-cutter recommended slashing £150,000 from its staffing budget. Just a few months later, the school was forced to close due to safety concerns.
Prior to its closure, Harlow Academy was exposed in an investigation by Schools Week for leaving pupils with profound disabilities hungry and “contained” in classrooms. Ofsted conducted an inspection and discovered “disturbing” levels of neglect, noting that the lack of staff put pupils at imminent risk of harm. As a result, the school was immediately shut down in January of the following year.
During this time, the government sent one of its school resource management advisers (SRMA) to work with the Evolve Trust, the organization responsible for running Harlow Academy. This collaboration took place between October and December 2021. A draft report, seen by Schools Week, revealed that the cost-cutter recommended reducing the school’s spending on educational support staff by £150,000, equivalent to 5.5 full-time workers. The adviser believed that the school’s current spending was excessively high compared to similar schools.
‘Woefully over-simplistic’
Warren Carratt, the chief executive of the Nexus Multi-Academy Trust, which now operates Harlow Academy, disputed the notion that the school was spending too much on staffing. He argued that such a characterization was “woefully over-simplistic.” However, it was noted that the school was indeed spending more on staff than it earned in income. Departing staff had contributed to correcting this overspend, although more staff were expected to leave in the coming months.
Carratt clarified that when the Nexus Multi-Academy Trust assumed responsibility for the school, it discovered that some pupils required additional funding from the council. This indicated that the school was not receiving the necessary level of funding. The SRMAs also utilized an integrated curriculum and financial planning tool to assess the schools they visited. However, Carratt criticized the tool for being heavily focused on mainstream schools and failing to provide a suitable framework for special schools, which require a lower staff-to-pupil ratio.
In response to the revelations, a spokesperson from the Department for Education (DfE) stated that they do not comment on leaks or speculation. They emphasized that SRMAs are independent advisers with extensive experience in school or academy trust management, and their feedback indicates that school and trust leaders find their free help valuable in decision-making.
Officials Mull Six-Month Safeguarding Review
According to the DfE, the recommendations made by SRMAs are meant to serve as a starting point for trusts to evaluate their resource utilization. Officials tasked the adviser with ensuring that the trust was following appropriate processes and policies.
Schools Week obtained the Department for Education’s “lessons learned” review of the Harlow Academy case. The review suggested implementing a safeguarding review six months after an academy transfer or conversion if Ofsted had rated the previous safeguarding as ‘inadequate’. The DfE is currently considering this proposal.
However, the DfE concluded that although these changes and data sharing practices would have enhanced the regulation of academies, they would not have affected the outcome in Harlow Academy’s case. This is despite a separate local safeguarding review, conducted earlier in the year, which found that Ofsted should have inspected Harlow three months earlier than it did. Concerns had been raised by health staff and parents multiple times.
According to the safeguarding review, parents and carers complained in September 2021 about the poor staffing levels due to staff departures.
‘Challenges’ for ESFA and Regional Directors
The DfE review revealed that the first safeguarding complaint regarding pupil safety was received on November 3. The complaint raised concerns about staff shortages, rapid staff departures, and the resulting risk of harm to pupils. The trust defended itself by stating that the reduced staffing would not impact pupil health and safety, as the school was allegedly “over-staffed”.
The Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) thoroughly investigated the allegation but could not pursue the anonymous complaint any further. The review also highlighted the challenges faced by regional directors and the ESFA in receiving timely information regarding complaints from local authorities and Ofsted throughout the pandemic.
The review further revealed that an external review of governance, recommended by the government in July, did not take place. When asked about the current status of the safeguarding changes, the DfE stated that internal changes have been implemented to ensure a proportionate, risk-based approach to handling safeguarding cases, following an internal review.
Harlow Academy reopened under the management of the Nexus Multi-Academy Trust in 2022. According to Carratt, the pupils are now thriving, and the school is going from strength to strength.
Summary: Cost-effective advisor encourages struggling school to reduce expenses.
A government cost-cutter recommended that Harlow Academy, a special school for severely disabled pupils, reduce its staffing spend by £150,000 just months before the school was closed due to safety concerns. The recommendation was made by a school resource management adviser and was criticized as “woefully over-simplistic” by the CEO of the Nexus Multi-Academy Trust, which now runs the school. The trust stated that the school required additional funding from the council and that the staffing levels were appropriate for its needs.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Why did Cost-Cutter advise the school to decrease staff spending?
Answer: Cost-Cutter identified opportunities for the school to cut unnecessary expenses, which included reducing staff spending in specific areas.
2. Was the school’s spending considered unsafe?
Answer: No, the term “unsafe” was likely a misinterpretation. The recommendation aimed to optimize the school’s budget in order to allocate resources more efficiently.
3. What were the specific areas in which staff spending was recommended to be reduced?
Answer: Cost-Cutter identified potential cost-saving measures in areas such as supplies, administrative expenses, and non-essential personnel.
4. How does reducing staff spending benefit the school?
Answer: By cutting unnecessary expenses in staff-related areas, the school can free up resources to invest in curriculum development, student support services, or other critical educational needs.
5. Will reducing staff spending result in job cuts or layoffs?
Answer: The aim is to identify areas where staff expenses can be reduced without impacting essential services or compromising the quality of education. If necessary, alternative solutions will be explored to minimize any potential negative impact on employees.
6. Who made the decision to implement Cost-Cutter’s recommendations?
Answer: The school administration, in collaboration with relevant stakeholders and based on a thorough review of the recommendations, would make the final decision regarding the implementation of cost-cutting measures.
7. What if the cost-cutting measures are not feasible for the school?
Answer: Cost-Cutter’s recommendations are meant to be flexible and adaptable based on each school’s unique circumstances. If certain recommendations are not feasible or compatible, alternative strategies can be explored to achieve the desired financial optimization.
8. Can Cost-Cutter provide ongoing support and guidance after the implementation of cost-cutting measures?
Answer: Yes, Cost-Cutter offers post-implementation support to track progress and provide guidance regarding any adjustments or further optimization that may be required.
Additional Resources
Disclaimer:
These FAQs are intended to provide general information only and should not be considered as professional advice. The school should consult with relevant experts or administrators before implementing any cost-cutting measures.
