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 鈥渋mplement proactive steps鈥. More than six months on from the scheme’s launch, Gould answers Schools Week‘s written questions… Deficits Question:鈥Do you accept that some schools and trusts will not be able to make these鈥additional鈥savings? For example, those with large deficits already. What is your message to them about affordability of future pay rises?鈥赌赌听 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鈥檓鈥痯roud 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.听The听good news is that the tools鈥痺e’re鈥痬aking available are already making a real difference. Schools are saving tens of thousands of pounds鈥撯痮n energy, on supply staff costs鈥撯痑nd 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鈥痶hey’re鈥痵pending less time going back and forth with large commercial suppliers and more time on what matters鈥撯痚ducation. Georgia Gould It鈥痬ay 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鈥撯痶hrough school resource management advisers, local鈥痑uthorities鈥痑nd the department. So鈥痶his is about鈥痶he collective鈥痯ower of鈥痑ll鈥痵chools鈥痑nd trusts鈥痶o鈥痝et the鈥痬ost鈥痸alue鈥痜rom their resources,鈥痷ltimately鈥痜or鈥痯upils.鈥疘t is about helping every school and trust鈥痬aximise鈥痶he鈥痳esources they鈥痟ave.鈥疘鈥檇鈥痳eally encourage all schools to engage with the opportunities we are鈥痮pening up鈥痶hrough 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?鈥 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鈥痟ave to鈥痙eal with are focused鈥痑bove all else鈥痮n profit. Schools and trusts鈥痵houldn鈥檛鈥痟ave to face excessive supplier margins on their own鈥 this is where government can step in and make a difference.鈥疶he new鈥痙oes that 鈥 it鈥痳emoves 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鈥痭ot to follow the framework without good reason, they risk breaching procurement rules and the expectations set out in the handbook鈥 this includes potentially breaching their funding agreement, which could lead to consequences. This is鈥痑bout鈥痑 collective effort鈥痷sing the鈥痯urchasing power across all schools鈥痑nd trusts鈥痶o make鈥痵ure as much funding as possible reaches the classroom, where it has the greatest impact for pupils. Waiving fees Question:鈥You mentioned in your press release about the support staff caps that waiving 鈥榯emporary-to-permanent’ fees after 12 weeks recently saved one school around 拢150,000 over 18 months. Are you able to give any more information on this? Do you think鈥迟丑补迟鈥檚鈥representative of the average savings schools are likely to make?鈥 Answer:鈥疨ermanent recruitment fees can be as high as 20 per cent of a role’s annual salary 鈥 that is a significant cost for any school. In this case, the trust鈥痶old us how they鈥痵aved鈥痑n average鈥痮f 拢3,000 per role by using the free temporary-to-permanent benefit within the framework, which added up to around 拢150,000 over 18 months. Every鈥痵chool’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:鈥The DfE has said trusts should 鈥渆nsure that pay and rewards for multi-academy trust executives are proportionate and justified鈥.鈥 Do you think it is justified to pay a MAT CEO more than 拢500,000 a year? Is the DfE considering publishing executive pay scales or setting a cap? If not, why not?鈥 Answer: School leaders are important public鈥痵ervants鈥痓ut we need to鈥痬ake sure鈥痮ur rules are in line with those across the public sector whether 迟丑补迟鈥檚 leadership of NHS trusts, senior staff in justice. The white paper earlier this year made clear that鈥痺e鈥檇鈥痶ake steps to make sure executive pay was proportionate and justifiable.鈥疻e鈥檙e鈥痩ooking at the best way to do鈥痶hat鈥痓ut nothing is off the table. That goes for overall鈥痵alaries鈥痓ut 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鈥痳epresent鈥痯roper value for money. Banking comparisons Question:鈥How many schools have used your new banking comparison鈥tool, since鈥it was launched? Can you provide insight into how much it鈥檚 helped schools save so far? Answer:鈥疧ver 460 schools and trusts have already used the鈥痵ince its launch 鈥 an encouraging start 鈥 but we think there are many, many more that could benefit. With鈥痭early 拢6 billion鈥痟eld 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 拢16,000 a year to over 拢1 million in under two years.鈥疧ver 90 per cent of trusts already bank with institutions鈥痮n the tool, so鈥痠t鈥檚鈥痑 practical starting point. We鈥檙e鈥痵upporting schools鈥痑nd trusts鈥痵o鈥痠t鈥檚鈥痚asy鈥痶o鈥痳egularly review how their resources are working for them 鈥 and take confident, informed decisions to maximise value for pupils. Energy for schools Question:鈥疕ow 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?鈥 Answer:鈥疧ver 1,000 schools have already signed up for Energy for Schools, and the early results speak for themselves. The way it works is simple 鈥 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 鈥 a typical primary school could save 拢4,900 a year on electricity and gas, and a typical secondary could save 拢23,200. Now, I know many schools are already locked into multi-year contracts, so uptake will build over time as those鈥痗ome to an end. But the ambition is clear 鈥 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鈥痶hey’re鈥痶here to do. Scaling take-up is central to our wider approach 鈥 freeing up funding from non-staff鈥痵pend鈥痑nd 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:鈥疻e know schools are feeling the pressure of rising energy costs, and鈥痺e’re鈥痭ot 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 鈥 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鈥檙e鈥痑lso installing solar and energy efficiency measures at up to 250 schools and colleges 鈥 saving a typical school up to 拢25,000 a year 鈥 through the GB Energy Solar programme.鈥疻e’re鈥痚xpanding that to a further 100 schools and colleges this year. I know鈥痠t鈥檚鈥痶ough, but there is support there for schools and鈥疘鈥檇鈥痳eally encourage them to seek it out. This government鈥痟as got鈥痶he right economic plan and inflation has held steady 鈥 MVP is one of the ways鈥痺e鈥檙e鈥痟elping 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:鈥疘鈥檓鈥痯roud 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 鈥 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鈥痶he鈥疭chool Teachers鈥欌疪eview鈥疊ody鈥(STRB)鈥痶o provide pay recommendations covering鈥痶wo鈥痽ears, 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鈥痺hich will support鈥痵chool leaders managing budgets in a constrained financial environment.鈥疶his process鈥痑lso鈥痗onsiders teacher recruitment and retention, inflation, pressures on school budgets, and other factors. We have now received the STRB鈥檚 report and are considering their recommendations in line with the usual process, we understand the urgency and are working across government鈥痑nd will respond鈥痠n due course.