DfE cost-cutter told ‘unsafe’ school to slash £150k from staff spend

Resource management adviser was sent to school where Ofsted found 'lack of staff leaves pupils at imminent risk of harm'

Resource management adviser was sent to school where Ofsted found 'lack of staff leaves pupils at imminent risk of harm'


A government cost-cutter recommended a special school for severely disabled pupils slash £150,000 from its staffing spend just months before it was shut because it was unsafe.

A Schools Week investigation previously exposed how pupils with profound disabilities were left to go hungry and “contained” in classrooms at Harlow Academy in Nottinghamshire.

Ofsted found “disturbing” levels of neglect as the “lack of staff leaves pupils at imminent risk of harm”. The school was immediately closed after the inspection in January last year.

We can now reveal the government sent one of its school resource management advisers (SRMA) to work with the Evolve Trust, which ran the school at the time, between October and December 2021.

A draft report seen by Schools Week shows the cost-cutter recommended Harlow reduce its spend on educational support staff by £150,000 – the equivalent of 5.5 full time workers.

The adviser said its “current spend is very high when benchmarked against comparator schools”.

‘Woefully over-simplistic’

However Warren Carratt, chief executive of the Nexus Multi-Academy Trust, which now runs the school, said it was “woefully over-simplistic to define the school as spending too much money on staffing”.

The SRMA highlighted the school was spending more than all its income on staff.

Departing staff had contributed to “correcting this overspend”, however, and more were expected to leave in the next few months.

Warren Carratt
Warren Carratt

But Carratt said that when his trust took over, it found some pupils required additional funding from the council – meaning the school “wasn’t getting the level of funding” needed.

SRMAs also apply the integrated curriculum and financial planning tool to schools they visit, which tests whether schools are overspending based on what is considered an adequate staffing level.

However Carratt said it was “heavily mainstream-focused” and was “never going to provide the necessary lens of scrutiny the trust should have been subjected to”. Special schools have a higher staff-to-pupil ratio than mainstream schools.

A DfE spokesperson said it “does not comment on leaks or speculation.

“However, SRMAs are independent advisers who have significant experience of school or academy trust business management. Feedback shows that school and trust leaders find SRMA’s free help supports their decision-making.”

Officials mull six-month safeguarding review

They said recommendations were “a starting point” for a trust to consider if it was making the best use of resources.

Officials wanted the adviser to check the trust was following the appropriate processes and policies.

Schools Week also obtained the Department for Education’s “lessons learned” review of the case.

This proposed introducing a safeguarding review six months after an academy transfer or conversion where Ofsted had rated safeguarding ‘inadequate’, something officials are now considering.

But the DfE concluded while this and other data sharing changes would have improved the regulation of academies, it “would not have affected the outcome of this case”.

This is despite a separate local safeguarding review earlier this year finding Ofsted should have inspected Harlow three months earlier than it did. Health staff had sounded the alarm 20 times and parents had flagged concerns for months.

The safeguarding review said parents and carers complained in September 2021 that “staffing levels were very poor as more staff left”.

‘Challenges’ for ESFA and regional directors

The DfE review said the first safeguarding complaint over pupil safety was lodged on November 3. This related to staff shortages, “rapid” departures of staff and “pupils consequently left at risk of harm”.

The trust responded to the allegation by stating “the reduced staffing would not impact the health and safety of pupils, as …the school was ‘over-staffed’.”

The Education and Skills Funding Agency “investigated the allegations as far as possible” but the anonymous complaint could not be taken further.

It added that throughout the pandemic, there were “challenges” for regional directors and the ESFA “receiving timely information regarding complaints received” by councils and Ofsted.

The review also revealed how an external review of governance, recommended by the government in July, did not take place.

When asked if the safeguarding changes were still under consideration, the DfE said: “Following an internal review, internal changes to ensure a proportionate, risk-based approach to handling safeguarding cases have been implemented.”

Harlow reopened under Nexus in 2022. Carratt said pupils were “now thriving and the school is going from strength to strength”.

Correction: This article has been amended to state staff-to-pupil ratios for special schools are higher, not lower, than mainstream schools.

More from this theme


More than 10,000 pupils ‘fall through the cracks’ – de Souza

Children's commissioner makes wide-ranging recommendations to make school system more 'inclusive'

Freddie Whittaker

New legal duty on school staff to report child sexual abuse

Home Office outlines new safeguarding requirement - but few details confirmed and no date for introduction yet

Lucas Cumiskey

Pupils share food with classmates amid cost of living crisis

Poll for the NEU finds 37% of children know someone who 'sometimes does not have enough food to eat...

Freddie Whittaker

Set Gatsby-style benchmarks for extracurricular activities, says EPI

Targets needed to address 'concerning inequalities in access', says think tank

Lucas Cumiskey

Government told ‘get a grip’ as new crumbly concrete closes schools

Urgent inspections launched after ceiling collapse at primary caused by crumbly concrete that isn't RAAC

Jack Dyson

Primary head named as first school safeguarding tsar

Jon Le Fevre will help the DfE explore whether schools should become a fourth safeguarding partner

Samantha Booth

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


  1. Sandy Cameron

    “Feedback shows that school and trust leaders find SRMA’s free help supports their decision-making.”

    That might simply mean that the school makes a decision NOT to do what the SRMA advises!

  2. Jill Attewell

    I’ve seen SRMA jobs advertised at £400 per day plus £100 per day travel expenses and there are large numbers of them. An immediate significant saving could be made by getting rid of all of them and spending the money saved on schools and pupils.

  3. Peter Piper

    Interesting. The journalist could have a real future in politics. Prime Minister material given there is no connection with a SRMA review and an Ofsted safeguarding inspection. But great headline eh? – making this non existent connection. Great journalistic grasp of knowledge on their subject matter is well demonstrated with the statement that ‘Special schools have a lower staff-to-pupil ratio than mainstream schools’. No really – that is what it says. Well its written by Samantha Booth so must be true – eh?
    Of course Newsweek doesn’t need to check facts as it knows it won’t get challenged publishing a load of absolute twaddle.

  4. Ron Godling

    More unfounded SRMA bashing. SMRA’s advise schools on how to use their publicly funded money to their best advantage. They don’t take money away. They try and help schools that cannot balance their budgets. The SRMA did one job – Ofsted did another. Since when did SRMA’s include a safeguarding inspection to check if staff on the payroll were being negligent in looking after the pupils? That is Ofsted’s job and it was done. An SRMA does not ever define a school – so ignorant to claim this happens. What is concerning is anyone who throws unfounded mud at the work SRMA’s do – tends to be people trying to hide something. It is public money and it’s use should be scrutinised to ensure pupils get the best value from it. Oh and look at the ignorance in this article stating the staff to pupil ratio is lower for special schools.

  5. Roger Stone

    The dates in this articles actually give away the fact a SRMA review would not have been completed until December – not ‘several months before’ Ofsted closed the school. Staff left in September according to the article, and the safeguarding complaint happened in October, before the review even took place or was completed . SRMA reviews can’t and do not check on safeguarding and negligent staff. Schools running their budgets badly normally correlate with schools running their education and support badly but SRMA’s are not Ofsted. So my guess, given the super CEO doesn’t state he is running the school with less staff than were on payroll in December, is that the school was over staffed – though perhaps they were not showing up to work. Great that more funding was later secured, but SEN assessments are not in an SRMA’s remit for obvious reasons. That’s down to the school to secure correct assessments.
    CEO’s who seek to discount the value of SRMA reviews should be viewed with healthy caution. It is tax payers money schools use and SRMA’s only offer advice on how to achieve best value for money. Schools then choose whether to take any advice. It’s advice, not mandatory. This is very poor journalism in search of a headline. And the quoted ratio here for special schools on staff to pupils highlights the ignorance of the CEO and or journalist.
    The awful fact here appears to be a school and staff that didn’t look after its students. So why am I reading an SRMA is to blame?