The schools minister has revealed how many schools have so far used government’s flagship money-saving scheme, as she signalled plans for new CEO pay controls and acknowledged “considerable pressure” faced by school budgets. The “maximising value for pupils” programme is aimed at improving value for money, helping schools spend less. The government previously said schools “will need to realise and sustain better value from existing spending”, supported by MVP, to “improve the manageability” of the 6.5 per cent rise over three years recommended by ministers. So it has introduced a supply staff framework which caps the amount supply agencies can charge. It also gives schools access to special energy rates, while a banking comparison tool allows them to compare interest rates and make the most of financial assets. The Department for Education has urged every school, academy trust and council to use the support to “implement proactive steps”. More than six months on from the scheme’s launch, Gould answers Schools Week‘s written questions… Deficits Question: Do you accept that some schools and trusts will not be able to make these additional savings? For example, those with large deficits already. What is your message to them about affordability of future pay rises? I recognise the vital work of school leaders and school business professionals in managing budgets under considerable pressure. Their leadership and financial stewardship are essential to maintaining strong and resilient schools in challenging times. I’m proud that as a government we have been able to continue increasing investment in schools despite the really challenging economic climate, but I recognise costs are not spread evenly and budgets are under pressure. That is why we are working so hard to make the tools and support we are providing as practical and accessible as possible. The good news is that the tools we’re making available are already making a real difference. Schools are saving tens of thousands of pounds – on energy, on supply staff costs – and getting better returns on their reserves. The benchmarking tools are sharper too. The whole point is to take pressure off headteachers and business managers, so they’re spending less time going back and forth with large commercial suppliers and more time on what matters – education. Georgia Gould It may well be the schools that are under the most pressure right now that have the most to gain. I do recognise that some schools and trusts will find it harder to move at pace, and for those, support is there – through school resource management advisers, local authorities and the department. So this is about the collective power of all schools and trusts to get the most value from their resources, ultimately for pupils. It is about helping every school and trust maximise the resources they have. I’d really encourage all schools to engage with the opportunities we are opening up through the maximising value for pupils programme. Supply staff Question: Will there be any repercussions for academies that do not follow the new supply staff framework, or hire supply staff via agencies with higher rates? Answer: I know that the cost of supply staff has been a real source of pressure for lots of schools, often because the companies they have to deal with are focused above all else on profit. Schools and trusts shouldn’t have to face excessive supplier margins on their own – this is where government can step in and make a difference. The new Supply Teachers and Education Recruitment (STeER) framework does that – it removes the need to negotiate costs and gives schools confidence they are paying a fair, capped rate and can focus on quality. Our expectation is clear: public money should not be spent above those capped rates without exceptional circumstances. Where academies choose not to follow the framework without good reason, they risk breaching procurement rules and the expectations set out in the handbook – this includes potentially breaching their funding agreement, which could lead to consequences. This is about a collective effort using the purchasing power across all schools and trusts to make sure as much funding as possible reaches the classroom, where it has the greatest impact for pupils. Waiving fees Question: You mentioned in your press release about the support staff caps that waiving ‘temporary-to-permanent’ fees after 12 weeks recently saved one school around £150,000 over 18 months. Are you able to give any more information on this? Do you think that’s representative of the average savings schools are likely to make? Answer: Permanent recruitment fees can be as high as 20 per cent of a role’s annual salary — that is a significant cost for any school. In this case, the trust told us how they saved an average of £3,000 per role by using the free temporary-to-permanent benefit within the framework, which added up to around £150,000 over 18 months. Every school’s circumstances are different, so savings will vary. But the principle is clear: waiving temporary-to-permanent fees after 12 weeks is a straightforward way to reduce recruitment costs, and I want every school to be making the most of it. CEO pay Question: The DfE has said trusts should “ensure that pay and rewards for multi-academy trust executives are proportionate and justified”. Do you think it is justified to pay a MAT CEO more than £500,000 a year? Is the DfE considering publishing executive pay scales or setting a cap? If not, why not? Answer: School leaders are important public servants but we need to make sure our rules are in line with those across the public sector whether that’s leadership of NHS trusts, senior staff in justice. The white paper earlier this year made clear that we’d take steps to make sure executive pay was proportionate and justifiable. We’re looking at the best way to do that but nothing is off the table. That goes for overall salaries but it also goes for some of the excessive increases we see in pay year on year, which can be out of kilter with both peers carrying out similar roles and the rises received by the wider workforce. It is for trust boards to set pay, but they should be in no doubt about our expectations: these are public funds, and executive pay must represent proper value for money. Banking comparisons Question: How many schools have used your new banking comparison tool, since it was launched? Can you provide insight into how much it’s helped schools save so far? Answer: Over 460 schools and trusts have already used the banking comparison tool since its launch – an encouraging start – but we think there are many, many more that could benefit. With nearly £6 billion held in reserves across the system, it is vital that money is working as hard as possible for pupils, and this tool helps schools do exactly that. Some schools have had remarkable results: for example, Bishop Hogarth Trust reviewed their banking arrangements and went from generating around £16,000 a year to over £1 million in under two years. Over 90 per cent of trusts already bank with institutions on the tool, so it’s a practical starting point. We’re supporting schools and trusts so it’s easy to regularly review how their resources are working for them – and take confident, informed decisions to maximise value for pupils. Energy for schools Question: How many schools have used Energy for Schools? Are you happy with the level of uptake, or are you keen to see more schools use this? Answer: Over 1,000 schools have already signed up for Energy for Schools, and the early results speak for themselves. The way it works is simple – we buy energy up to 30 months ahead, when market conditions are more favourable. That protects schools from the kind of sudden price spikes that can hit budgets hard. And because energy is one of the biggest areas of non-staff spend, the collective buying power here is significant. Less admin, less risk, lower costs – a typical primary school could save £4,900 a year on electricity and gas, and a typical secondary could save £23,200. Now, I know many schools are already locked into multi-year contracts, so uptake will build over time as those come to an end. But the ambition is clear – we want every school signed up to either Energy for Schools or one of our approved partner deals, so they can feel confident in their energy supply and focus on what they’re there to do. Scaling take-up is central to our wider approach – freeing up funding from non-staff spend and reinvesting it into classrooms. Support? Question: Schools will be worried about the impact of rising energy costs and fuel bills. What is the government going to do to support them with that? Answer: We know schools are feeling the pressure of rising energy costs, and we’re not standing by while that uncertainty hits budgets. [With] Energy for Schools, schools can access multi-year contracts where energy is bought by experts up to 30 months in advance, locking in better prices before the market moves against them — real protection from the kind of volatility we’re seeing in global energy markets right now. Our latest benchmarking data shows a median saving in the region of 25 per cent on costs for gas supply, and for electricity. We’re also installing solar and energy efficiency measures at up to 250 schools and colleges — saving a typical school up to £25,000 a year — through the GB Energy Solar programme. We’re expanding that to a further 100 schools and colleges this year. I know it’s tough, but there is support there for schools and I’d really encourage them to seek it out. This government has got the right economic plan and inflation has held steady – MVP is one of the ways we’re helping and protecting schools. Future funding Question: Part of the problem schools face is uncertainty over funding. Has the government considered linking school funding to inflation, which would guarantee rises each year would match prices more widely? This would also enable the government to match pay to inflation, knowing the funding is keeping pace. Answer: I’m proud of how we as a government, and in the DfE, have been able to continue increasing investment in schools despite the really challenging economic climate. For too long, schools have been picking up the pieces of wider pressures on families – absorbing the impact cuts to services that should have been there for children and parents. Teachers and school leaders have gone above and beyond, but that has come at a cost. Part of what we are trying to do is address that. We have remitted the School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB) to provide pay recommendations covering two years, along with an indicative pay recommendation for a third year. This approach reflects our recognition of the need for greater clarity and stability in pay arrangements which will support school leaders managing budgets in a constrained financial environment. This process also considers teacher recruitment and retention, inflation, pressures on school budgets, and other factors. We have now received the STRB’s report and are considering their recommendations in line with the usual process, we understand the urgency and are working across government and will respond in due course.