Digital Education Resource Archive

Effectiveness of school mental health awareness interventions : Universal approaches in English secondary schools : February 2025

Vignoles, Anna

 Peer Review of: The Children and Young People’s Services Formula Review February 2025 Author: Professor Anna Vignoles  1 Contents Overview 2 Approach 3 Issues for consideration 5 Technical issues 8 Conclusion 8  2 Overview LG Futures, the University of Huddersfield and the University of Plymouth were commissioned by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and the Department for Education (DfE) to develop an updated and rigorous model to underpin the allocation of resources to Local Authorities for Children and Young People’s Services (CYPS). The work is part of a broader set of projects informing the Review of Relative Needs and Resources (RRNR). LG Futures and their collaborators were asked to take account of the basic principles for designing a new relative needs assessment methodology namely: • Simplicity • Transparency • Contemporary • Sustainability • Robustness • Stability LG Futures proposes a model that could replace the underlying assessment of relative needs and resources currently being used as the basis for funding Local Authority baselines, which is more than a decade old. Here I provide peer review of the proposed methodological approach and comment on the specific assumptions that lie behind the model. Where possible I provide commentary on the appropriateness of the data used in the model, particularly on the issues of quality and fitness for purpose. However, I am not able to get sight of all of the many data sets that underpin the model and hence cannot provide quality assurance on each of them. This scrutiny report also does not address any issues relating to the share of spending that should be allocated to CYPS. In summary, the LG Futures report is extremely thorough. It carefully documents the existing funding system and spells out exactly how the proposed funding methodology has been developed. It is very clear about the assumptions on which the proposed model is based and does an excellent job of detailing the data needs (and limitations) of the model.  In terms of the principles discussed above, it appears to fulfil at least 5. The exception may be the first principle: the model is far from simple. This is acknowledged by the authors and they make a clear case as to why the complexity of the model is a price worth paying to get greater robustness. The way that the model has been constructed should however, enable more regular updating and hence it will be more transparent, contemporary and sustainable than the current system. In respect of the contemporary 3 nature of the data that feed the model, it will be more obvious when data has become out of date (e.g. it is clear where the model relies on 2011 Census data). In terms of stability, the model would be sensitive to dramatic changes in the underlying demographic characteristics of populations between areas. This is as it should be, in the sense that if a LA is experiencing a particularly major shift in its underlying population demographics then its funding needs to quickly reflect that. There is one potential issue with regards to stability in respect of the use of the Free School Meals indicator, which is discussed below.  It is worth noting that, irrespective of the complexity of the model, it will be very sensitive to the resource weights that are attached to each CSC activity metric used in the formula. These resource weights are potentially, as recognised in the report, a policy decision by MHCLG/DfE and it is important in terms of transparency that this is very clear in this report, and all future documentation. It is also worth noting that the new model may produce a significant shift in the allocation of resources across LAs, at least it may be major shift for some LAs (I do not have the underlying data so cannot see the extent to which allocations may change dramatically). Given that the model is now driven by a different selection of variables, it is to be expected that significant changes in allocations may occur. There is no commentary in the report I believe on managing such a transition. This issue needs to be addressed if the formula is adopted. Overall, I am satisfied that what is proposed meets the remit set by MHCLG and DfE for a genuinely needs based prediction of what the likely CYPS activity is for each LA and hence provides a basis for allocating the total sum allocated to CYPS across different Local Authorities. The approach appears sound. However, there are some issues which merit further consideration. Approach The current methodology used to allocate funding to Local Authorities consists of distinct formulae for three sub allocations, namely: Children’s Social Care, Youth and Community, and LA Central Education Functions. The latter function was excluded from the remit of the LG Futures report after discussion with MHCLG and DfE. It is also important to note that Early Intervention Funding was incorporated into each LA’s baseline in 2013/14 and hence is within scope of the report. The LG Futures report therefore proposes a methodology for calculating LA funding for Children’s Social Care and Youth and Community functions only, including Early Intervention Funding. Whilst elements of the formulae behind the current allocations to LAs have been updated over time, most relate to the period 2013/14 or earlier. Hence it is clear that an update is indeed necessary. 4 The current funding formula is based on a multi-level model of the variation in per capita costs of CSC services using postcode district level data. The underlying cost and service use data are from a 2003 Children in Need survey and the model is driven by 4 factors: • % of children in fairly good/bad health • % working age adults receiving IS or IS based Jobseeker’s Allowance • % children in out of work families receiving tax credit • % children in black ethnic groups. The LG Futures report suggests a different approach based on individual level data on need. Since needs arise at the level of the child or young person, rather than at the area level, this is a more robust approach. Aggregating predictions of individuals’ needs will lead to area estimates of need that better reflect differences in populations, as compared to an approach that is based on estimating needs from the average characteristics of areas. LG Futures proposes a single formula to determine funding allocations for CYPS at the Local Authority level, based on the modelled / predicted need of each LA. The formula would be derived from a 2 level multi-level model that uses individual level data to predict the child’s social care needs (CSC), and specifically whether the child is likely to be classified as Children in Need (CiN) or Children Looked After (CLA). A 3 level model (individual, LSOA and LA) was considered and dismissed, largely on grounds of computational complexity. Estimates of need are then translated into likely level of activity at the LA level, which can in turn drive the allocation of resources. The proposed approach requires good quality individual level data on numbers of children by age and their demographic characteristics that predict their need for CYPS. The decision to use the National Pupil Database as the source of much of the data is a sound one, given the relative robustness of that data set. Issues relating to the problems that arise from relying on this data set are discussed below. A key principle behind this approach is that LAs should be funded on the basis of the underlying needs of their populations, i.e. as predicted by demographic risk factors. They should not be funded on the basis of how efficiently they currently spend their resources and hence their current levels of spend or activity. Hence factors that relate to differences in LA policy are deliberately excluded from the model, even though they might well predict whether a child receives a service. For example, a LA with an excellent early intervention policy may have fewer Children Looked After. LAs should not be punished for this efficient early intervention policy by being funded at a lower rate. This is a very sound principle. 5 Issues for consideration The report helpfully sets out some principles and assumptions that lie behind the methodology and this highlights the main issues for consideration that come out of the report. I only focus on issues that may be problematic or require further thought. There is inadequate data on the number and CSC needs of the 0-5 year old population since the National Pupil Database (NPD) coverage is poor for this group. • The needs of the age 6-10 year olds in NPD are used to simulate the needs of the age 0-5 year olds. The report presents data on the correlation of service use across age groups to justify this.  • On the basis of a high correlation between age 0-5 service use and age 6-10 service use, this appears to a reasonable assumption in the absence of adequate data on 0-5 year olds. However, it is far from ideal and developing a data source for the future might be something to consider, perhaps from medical records. A significant proportion of children are missing from one of the key data sets on which the model is built (NPD). This is largely due to children being educated in the independent school sector. • Around 7% of children age 5-17 are missing from NPD, consistent with estimates of the size of the independent school sector. • The report presents evidence that the vast majority of the children missing from NPD are likely to be in the independent school sector and hence it is assumed that they will have low levels of need.  • The missing children are not ignored. Instead the characteristics of the missing children are simulated by assuming that they are the same as the children for whom data is observed in a specific LSOA.  • Children being home schooled are potentially missing. This phenomenon has grown significantly in recent years. Home schooling might be correlated with CSC need. • The % of children missing from NPD does vary hugely by LA. So this problem will affect some LAs more than others, as is documented in the report.  • RECOMMENDATION 1: Investigate home schooling data held by DfE to determine the significance of this phenomenon for the model. Determine whether the Millennium Cohort Study has data on those who are not in the NPD which could be used to check the assumptions behind the simulations used. An alternative approach would be to change the parameters to test the sensitivity of allocations. For example, what material difference would it make if one assumed that a larger proportion of the missing children had higher levels of need.  6 The National Pupil Database will generally hold data on where the child is living, rather than their location prior to being looked after. Separate data is needed to determine where such children were originally living and hence in which LA their needs arose. • This data was collected from 71 LAs. • The report provides descriptive statistics which suggest the LAs that provided data were representative of all LAs. • There is a risk that LAs that did not provide data are unobservably different from those that did. However, it is likely that any unobserved drivers of whether a LA responded are related to LA operations/efficiency/policy rather than differences in need, so on balance this data seems adequate.  • It is not clear how, going forward, one would update this information to keep the model current. • RECOMMENDATION 2: if this new model is adopted, the Departments might want to determine whether to collect this core data on a routine basis. Cost data by type of CSC activity is complex and sometimes aggregated across different activities. Calculating both the activity rates for CSC services and the related expenditure categories required a lot of assumptions. • The current source of data is very old (2003 Children in Need Survey) and could not be used. • Potential source data are carefully considered in the report, including a proposal to obtain individual child level data on CSC use from each LA. These alternative options were dismissed either on the basis of coverage or practicability. • The authors therefore rely on actual use of CSC services as recorded in the CiN and CLA data sets. This is of course a subset of total activity and it is possible that for some LAs this approach may under or overestimate their activity /need. However, in the absence of better data, this approach seems reasonable. • Data on use of services is then mapped (with some difficulty) to s251 returns on the proportion of expenditure associated with different CSC activity categories. Again, there are issues about the data here, particularly how one allocates expenditure to a particular activity. The report appears to have done a thorough job in exhausting the possible ways in which this data might be improved. • Overall, it is not clear how the data source used for this part of the process could be improved without considerable resource being spent on further data collection. There are some additional issues that arise in relation to the choice of predictors in the model. • The report carefully documents how individual, LSOA and LA predictors of need are selected, and the approach appears broadly sound. However, the final model 7 is sparse with few covariates (at individual level it is just age, sex, ethnic group and FSM eligibility). A number of variables are not included basically on the grounds of the poor quality or complexity of the data, as well as lack of statistical significance in the modelling. This means some variables one might expect to see are not in the model. Normally one might prefer a theoretically driven selection of covariates, but the authors note the difficulty due to the size of the data and complexity of the model and hence have gone for a parsimonious approach. This is reasonable, though as better data becomes available one might want to do robustness checks of the sensitivity of results to inclusion of key variables that are justified theoretically. • The covariates that are included in the model differ quite significantly in substantive nature from those used in the current model. • At LSOA and LA level, data on the “structural drivers” of need are limited to IDACI and the proportion of children in the LSOA who have parents with low qualifications. No LA variables are included in the model at all.  • One variable clearly missing from the model is the proportion of individuals who are on benefit, though of course the IDACI composite measure does include information about individuals on different types of benefit. I take the point about Universal Credit not being rolled out yet and hence this is difficult to capture. However, omission of data on UC benefit receipt at LSOA level may or may not be problematic in the future (the current model does include this). There is also no data on the proportion of individuals with higher levels of education. There is a comment that POLAR  is no longer being used by HEFCE. However, POLAR has been updated and is being used by HESA I think, which might merit further investigation. • RECOMMENDATION 3: Investigate possible use of POLAR. Update model when full coverage of UC is achieved. Provide some commentary on how the covariates differ from those in the current formula model. • A big driver in the proposed model is current FSM eligibility. The current FSM indicator variable will change over time (as families move into and out of benefits) and over the economic cycle. This means that the apparent needs of a LA could vary over the economic cycle even if the underlying population does not change. This might be correct if we think that having a material change in circumstances that causes a child to become FSM eligible also causes them to have increased need. If, however, we think long term poverty is a stronger driver of need, as compared to temporary reductions in income, then the model might be more sensitive to changes in FSM status than we would like. • RECOMMENDATION 4: Investigate whether “ever FSM” is a feasible alternative to use in the future. • Inclusion of ethnicity as a driver of need is discussed. It may be that lower service use by some ethnic minority groups reflects bias or lack of access to services. 8 This would suggest it should not be included. However, one could equally make the argument in reverse for FSM eligibility. Perhaps high use of services by FSM eligible children may not reflect their needs so much as “overuse” of services because negative judgements are made about the risks faced by children living in poor households. These are problematic issues that cannot be easily resolved. I agree that the decision to retain ethnic group is on balance acceptable. Technical issues The model is a standard multi-level model with random intercepts. This assumes that the variation across LAs is in the intercept not the slopes and hence that relationship between the predictors and the outcomes is the same across LAs. This appears to be an assumption rather than tested. • RECOMMENDATION 5: Further discussion is needed of any robustness checks on this point. Para 9.4 is incorrect, I think. It does not imply a causal relationship between LSOA and outcomes. It could be that there are omitted individual level variables that are correlated with LSOA and hence LSOA is simply a proxy for this. Para 9.67 refers to informal Bonferroni corrections and I was unclear what was meant by this. What is the interpretation of the very small magnitude of the FSM/SES interaction as an odds ratio? Paras 10.10-10.14 set out the issue of the “Unknown” ethnicity. Rather than assume that “Unknown” children are White British, could one not randomly assign an ethnicity to reproduce the proportion of the different ethnicity groupings in the LA? • RECOMMENDATION 6: These technical issues would benefit from further clarification and consideration in the final report. Conclusion Overall I am satisfied that what is proposed meets the remit set by MHCLG and DfE for a genuinely needs based prediction of what the likely CYPS activity is for each LA and hence provides a basis for allocating the total sum allocated to CYPS across different Local Authorities. In terms of the principles of the review, it appears to fulfil at least 5. The exception may be the first principle: the model is far from simple. This is acknowledged by the authors and they make a clear case as to why the complexity of the model is a price worth paying to get greater robustness. 9 In conclusion, the underpinning methodology that has been constructed to drive the model appears sound. It is worth noting however, that the authors stress the point that regular updates of data will be needed to keep the model current. This is required not just for the estimates of the denominator (population shares) but also for the prediction of need. This suggestion is vitally important, and a schedule of updates might be beneficial.  10  © Department for Education copyright 2025 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3.   Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.  Reference: RR1496 ISBN: 978-1-83870-621-0 For any enquiries regarding this publication, contact www.gov.uk/contact-dfe. This document is available for download at www.gov.uk/government/publications.  

Children and Young People’s Services Formula Review : Final Evaluation Report : February 2025

 Skills England: Sector skills needs assessments Professional and Business services June 2025 2 Contents  Summary 3 Priority jobs and skills 3 Training routes into the sector 6 Securing the future workforce 7 Gaps in Provision 7      3 Summary  The UK’s professional and business services (PBS) sector has a global reputation for quality and innovation. It is an enabler of growth across the economy, helping businesses to raise finance, scale up, export and invest.1 The sector accounts for over 12% of UK GVA, and hires 20% of graduates and 13% of apprentices in England.2,3,4 Professional business services (PBS) spans a range of industries, including Accounting, Audit & Tax Consultancy, Legal Services and Management Consultancy.5 At the time of writing, definitions of the eight Industrial Strategy growth-driving sectors are still in development. Our analysis uses the best available definitions and evidence, setting out what we already know and where further work is needed to understand the skills landscape within these sectors. The forthcoming Industrial Strategy Sector Plans will set out analysis of the highest growth potential subsectors. Priority jobs and skills In June 2024, there were 5 million jobs in the PBS sector, accounting for 14% of all jobs in the UK. This has increased by 16% (700,000) over the last decade. The largest growth has been in the legal and accounting, activities of head offices and management consulting, and scientific research and development industries, which grew by 28%, 30% and 38% respectively.6  The Skills Imperative 2035 research finds that, by 2035, the number of jobs in PBS is projected to increase by 570,000 compared with 2020 (12%). This will be driven by a large rise of 430,000 highly skilled professional and managerial roles, while the number of administrative jobs is set to decline by 60,000. Over the same period, 2.4 million workers are forecast to leave the sector; taken together with the expansion in the overall number of jobs, the total requirement for new employees by 2035 will be almost 3 million.  1 Invest 2025: the UK’s modern industrial strategy, DBT (2024) 2 GDP output approach- low-level aggregates, ONS (2024) 3 LEO Graduate and Postgraduate Outcomes 2021/22, DfE (2024). Skills England analysis of industry destinations 3 years after graduation – we use a proxy definition for PBS, industry section M, professional, technical and scientific services, and N, administrative and support service activities. 4 Apprenticeships in England by industry characteristics 2021/22, DfE (2024). We use a proxy definition for PBS, industry section M, professional, technical and scientific services, and N, administrative and support service activities. 5 PBS is defined by industry codes covering legal and accounting activities (69), head offices and management consulting (70), architectural and engineering activities (71), scientific research and development (72), advertising and marketing (73), other professional services (74) rental and leasing (77), employment activities (78) and administrative and office support services (82). This briefing includes additional detail on the legal and accounting industries and occupations. 6 JOBS04: Self-employment jobs by industry - Office for National Statistics & JOBS03: Employee jobs by industry - Office for National Statistics, ONS (2024) 4 These employees will need to fill jobs requiring a higher level of skills than those in the sector today.7 In addition, recent research published by the Professional and Business Services Council (PBSC) highlighted that the PBS sector is projected to be the most automation-disrupted sector in the UK, and that automation in PBS firms will create the opportunity for up to 584,000 new jobs to be created by 2040. The increased use of automation technologies in businesses will change many roles and responsibilities: eliminating some heavily administrative or repetitive roles while also creating a net gain of new roles in areas like artificial intelligence, machine learning, and robotics.8 The latest employment data shows that the PBS sector accounts for 17% of all vacancies in the economy. Whilst vacancies in PBS have fallen since a peak in 2022, there were still around 136,000 at the end of 2024, slightly above pre-pandemic levels.9 Results from the Employer Skills Survey 2022 (ESS) show that 36% of vacancies in PBS were hard-to-fill due to skill shortages, which was the most common reason given by PBS employers and is equal to the UK average. Skill shortages for PBS were primarily in10:  • Specialist skills and knowledge required for the role, particularly complex analytical skills and operational skills. • Self-management skills and the ability to prioritise tasks. The ESS also found that 6.9% of PBS employees were not fully proficient in their role, often due to being new in the role or lacking proper training. This is higher than the UK average of 5.7%.  The largest occupations in the PBS sector are all experiencing elevated demand, including, book-keepers, payroll managers and wages clerks, solicitors and lawyers, management consultants, and chartered and certified accountants.11 The 2021 PBSC skills for future success research describes a growing demand for technology and data skillsets and for roles including software developer/ engineer, data scientist and data architect, which are particularly challenging to fill given the competition for skills with other sectors.12 The increasing importance of hybrid roles is also noted, where traditional industry experience is blended with technical and data skills. Interpersonal transferable skills are needed as a bridge between the growing automation  7 Labour market and skills projections: 2020 to 2035, DfE (2023) 8 Skills for future success, Professional and Business Services Council (2021) 9  Vacancies by industry, ONS (2025) 10 Employer Skills Survey 2022, DfE (2023). We use a proxy definition for PBS, industry section M, professional, technical and scientific services, and N, administrative and support service activities 11 Occupations in Demand, DfE (2024) 12 Skills for future success, Professional and Business Services Council (2021) 5 of systems and customers and clients. Alongside leadership, these skills are key to ensuring the resilience to adapt to new ways of working.13 This research corroborates findings from our recent engagement with PBS employers 14, which also highlighted a growing demand for data and digital tech skills as new tools and technologies are integrated into business practices, most notably Artificial Intelligence. Employers identified a lack of transferable skills, including work-readiness among new employees, particularly with respect to communication, resilience and networking skills.  Jobs in PBS are predominantly based in London and the South East (40%), with significant clusters in Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Bristol.15 Employers highlighted regional variation in skills challenges, with greater difficulties in recruitment of professionals outside of London and the South East. Employers noted that higher wages in London create a ‘brain drain’ for key professional roles, which reduces the talent available to firms, particularly SMEs, in other regions of the UK.  The PBSC research drew similar conclusions, finding that regions with fewer large cities, a more limited local labour market, and without established collaboration between education providers, local government and employers, tended to face greater recruitment challenges. Regions with well-established clusters of PBS firms do better, as do large national firms who can draw on talent from across the UK.16 Key skills challenges  Legal services Engagement with the sector suggests that the biggest issue facing large law firms are skills and labour shortages.17 There is a particular issue with the supply of skilled non-lawyers in areas such as IT, cyber security, facilities and finance. In a large firm, a significant number of staff are non-lawyers who work behind the scenes. About a quarter of this group are very highly skilled in specialist areas and are difficult to recruit in the UK. In global firms more of these roles are migrating to offices outside the UK where there are fewer challenges.  Legal sector employers told us that there are regional difficulties recruiting and retaining lawyers; SMEs and employers in the public sector based outside of London and the South East find this particularly challenging.  13 Skills for future success, Professional and Business Services Council (2021) 14 During this engagement process and the drafting of this publication, Skills England was set up in shadow form within the Department for Education (DfE). Skills England - GOV.UK 15 Business Register and Employment Survey 2023, ONS (2024) 16 Skills for future success, Professional and Business Services Council (2021) 17 Department for Business and Trade intelligence 6 Accounting services Employers have told us that audit and tax skills are in demand in the sector, and that these skills are of particular importance for the strength of the UK economy. Employers suggested some are looking to offshore because of difficulties finding talent in the UK, and this is more challenging for employers in regions outside of the South East and London. Employers highlighted that accountancy skills are in demand in the public sector and that some public sector employers rely on agency staff to fill the skills gap, which is a drain on resources. Employers in the public sector we engaged with told us they find it difficult to recruit accountants because of salary demands.   Training routes into the sector The PBS sector is predominantly highly skilled. More than half (58%) of PBS employees are qualified to degree level or above, and 84% have at least a Level 3 qualification, which is above the national average of 39% and 72% respectively. High level qualifications and compliance with professional standards are required for many of the key PBS professions, including solicitors, accountants, architects and statutory auditors.  In 2021-22, 34,000 graduates were working in the sector five years after graduation, 20% of the 2015/16 graduate cohort.18 There is a diversity in the qualification routes for graduates, but the top three account for a third of the total: • Business and management (17% of the total, includes finance and accounting); • Law (9%); • Engineering (7%). The latest available data show over 40,000 apprenticeship starts in PBS employers in the 2021/22 academic year.19 Accountancy is the largest group of apprenticeship standards, including the Level 7 professional standard, the Level 4 technician and Level 3 assistant standards. Legal, business administration, data analyst, and digital marketer apprenticeships are all well used.   18 LEO Graduate and Postgraduate Outcomes 2021/22, DfE (2024). Skills England analysis of industry destinations 3 years after graduation – we use a proxy definition for PBS, industry section M, professional, technical and scientific services, and N, administrative and support service activities. 19 Apprenticeships in England by industry characteristics 2021/22, DfE (2024). We use a proxy definition for PBS, industry section M, professional, technical and scientific services, and N, administrative and support service activities 7 Securing the future workforce Apprenticeships are highly valued by the PBS sector. Employers told us that: • Longer programmes help with staff retention. • They function well as a way for public sector employers and smaller employers outside of London and the South East to grow talent that they struggle to recruit. • Apprenticeships provide a grounding in the culture and practices of the business and the technology used and produce more rounded employees who understand the business, which is a distinct benefit over higher education routes.  • They have helped with diversity and social justice in parts of the sector that have traditionally been seen as elitist. Gaps in Provision Employers suggested that foundation apprenticeships will not help with key professions in the PBS sector as they do not align with the roles employers want to recruit or develop and do not address the PBS requirements for professional practice and certification. However, the PBS employers we engaged with are keen to see greater flexibilities in the functioning of the apprenticeship levy.  The key points highlighted were: • The ability to fund shorter courses targeted at those employees in need of reskilling or upskilling. Employers suggested this would work best if government trusted them to make decisions on where to target spending, but highlighted data, digital and AI as areas that could benefit, along with transferable skills such as coaching, impactful communication and management. Longer comprehensive courses were still felt to be appropriate for entry level routes. • New flexibility in the system to enable temporary workers, and those on short term contracts, to do apprenticeships. • An overall reduction in bureaucracy in the administration of apprenticeships, for providers and employers, and a more flexible implementation of 20% training time away from the office. • Better careers signposting of the training available via apprenticeships to grow the number of school leavers considering this route. • Reconsideration of the maths and English exit requirements for apprenticeships, as these are seen as inappropriate for older, senior workers looking to reskill or upskill. 8   9  © Crown copyright 2025 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3.   Where we have identified any third-party copyright information, you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.  About this publication:  enquiries  https://www.gov.uk/contact-dfe   download  www.gov.uk/government/publications  Follow us on X: @educationgovuk Connect with us on Facebook: facebook.com/educationgovuk   

Skills England : Sector skills needs assessments : Professional and Business Services : June 2025

Research and analysisSummary of findings inrelation to 3 climate risks:overheating, flooding andwater scarcityPublished 19 June 2025Applies to EnglandOverheatingWhen classrooms get too hot, it can make it harder for students to learn. The UKclimate change risk assessment high temperatures briefing states that hightemperatures can be one of the key factors affecting the concentration of children inschools.MenuHome Education, training and skills Running and managing a schoolImpact of UK climate change risk on the delivery of educationDepartment for EducationContentsOverheatingFloodingWater scarcityCurrent DfE initiativesWhat schools and trusts can doA collaboration between the Met Office and University College London (UCL) hasprovided some initial insight, modelled at estate level, to raise awareness in theeducation system of how the predicted rise in temperatures could impact education.Findings from the collaboration show the extent to which rising temperatures – fromsubtle general increases to extreme heat events (heatwaves) – could affectstudents’ ability to learn.Overheating risk assessment for extreme heat eventsOn very hot days, particularly when indoor temperatures reach 35°C, learning couldbecome very difficult. On average, some schools may already experience one ortwo days a year like this.It’s been predicted that global surface temperatures could rise to approximately 4°Cabove pre-industrial levels by the turn of the century, if no global climate action istaken.If no adaptation measures are implemented for educational settings in advance ofthis, it’s predicted that learning could not reasonably take place in some teachingspaces across the education estate on up to 8 days a year due to extreme heatevents. Based on the Met Office and UCL analysis, Table 1 sets out the estimated averagenumber of days a year that indoor temperatures have been predicted to reach orexceed 35°C in some schools due to extreme heat events.Three future climate change scenarios have been used. The number of extremeheat days that could be experienced has been estimated.The scenarios are based on the predicted increase in global surface temperatureabove the 1850 to 1900 average if actions to mitigate climate change are not taken.More information about climate change scenarios, is available on the Met Officewebsite.For full details on the underlying methodology, read Quantifying overheating risk inEnglish schools: a spatially coherent climate risk assessment.Table 1: Extreme heat days estimateScenario Increase in globalsurface temperaturesince 1850 to 1900levelsPredicted date ofincrease if no globalclimate action is takenAverage number ofextreme heat daysper yearBaseline +1.2°C Current 1.71 +2°C 2050 2.92 +4°C 2100 7.8Overheating risk assessment for generally warmertemperaturesEven when temperatures are less extreme, persistent increases in temperature canaffect the ability to learn.Three future climate change scenarios have been used. The number of extremeheat days that could be experienced has been estimated.The scenarios are based on the predicted increase in global surface temperatureabove the 1850 to 1900 average if actions to mitigate climate change are not taken.Based on the Met Office and UCL analysis, Table 2 sets out the estimatedequivalent number of learning days that could be lost by pupils in some schools dueto more subtle increases in temperature resulting in a decreased ability to learn overthe course of a typical academic year.In the longer term, without the implementation of any adaptation measures, studentscould potentially lose up to 12 days of learning per year on average, as result ofgenerally warmer temperatures and not just from extreme heat.It’s important to recognise that these are averages based on emerging evidence,giving only an indicative indication at this stage.Table 2: Generally warmer temperatures estimateScenario Increase in global surfacetemperature since 1850 to1990 levelsPredicted date of increaseif no global climate actionis takenEstimatedlearningdays lostBaseline +1.2°C Current 6.71 +2°C 2050 8.22 +4°C 2100 11.4FloodingFlooding is another climate risk. Many schools, especially secondary settings, are atrisk from surface water and river and sea flooding, affecting:buildingsplaygroundsaccess routesBased on information provided by the Environment Agency (EA), the proportion ofstate-funded schools at risk from surface water and river and sea flooding has beenassessed.The assessment uses the EA categories of risk, based on the likelihood of a floodevent occurring. These are:high – greater than or equal to 3.3% (1 in 30) chance in any given yearmedium – greater than or equal to 1% (1 in 100) chance in any given yearlow – greater than or equal to 0.1% (1 in 1,000) chance in any given yearno risk – less than 0.1% (1 in 1,000) chance in any given yearBuildings with a footprint of greater than 25 square metres, and associated sites –for example, playing fields and car parks – have been assessed separately. It is notnecessarily the case that if the site is at risk, the building will also be at risk.Based on the analysed EA information, Table 3 sets out the estimated proportion ofschools at risk from surface water flooding.Table 4 sets out the estimated proportion of schools at risk from river and seaflooding.Some totals in Tables 3 and 4 may not match due to rounding of numbers.Table 3: Surface water flooding estimateEducation phase Location Low risk Medium risk High risk Not at riskPrimary Building 66% 37% 20% 34%Primary Site 80% 53% 33% 20%Secondary Building 83% 59% 38% 17%Secondary Site 89% 76% 59% 11%Table 4: River and sea flooding estimateEducation phase Location Low risk Medium risk High risk Not at riskPrimary Building 7% 4% 1% 93%Primary Site 10% 7% 3% 90%Secondary Building 7% 4% 1% 93%Secondary Site 13% 10% 6% 87%Water scarcityWater shortages in schools, while uncommon, do occur and we know that whenindividual schools are affected it can be highly disruptive. The Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs makes the Department for Education (DfE)aware of issues reported and DfE monitors these accordingly.We publish non-statutory emergency planning guidance to aid settings in planningfor a range of emergency scenarios.We remain alert to emerging knowledge of climate risks to education and will updateour assessments and guidance as new information comes to light.Current DfE initiativesIn response to the climate risks of overheating, flooding and water scarcity, DfE isactively implementing a range of initiatives such as:embedding adaptation into capital programmes – all new school buildingsdelivered through the school rebuilding programme are designed to be climateresilientevidence-building for future funding – desktop assessment and pilot evaluationsare helping to quantify need, prioritise interventions and manage investmentstrategicallyinvesting in flood resilience through the schools water strategy, and testingscalable solutions through the Bradford resilient schools pathfinder projects tosupport the case for future fundingWhat schools and trusts can doSchools and trusts should familiarise themselves with the guidance on extremeweather events and on supporting vulnerable people. It includes:hot weather and heatwavesassess and manage flood risk in schools checklistlooking after children and those in early years settings before and during hotweatherHelp us improve GOV.UKTo help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know moreabout your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opensin a new tab).Services and informationBenefitsBirths, death, marriages and careBusiness and self-employedChildcare and parentingGovernmentactivityDepartmentsNewsGuidance and regulationsupporting vulnerable peopleSchools and trusts should also:put in place a climate action plannominate a sustainability leadDoing this will help your school or trust understand your specific situation. You willthen be able to implement bespoke adaptations to suit your setting.There is a range of support available to help you with this, including:Sustainability Support for EducationClimate AmbassadorsNational Education Nature Park Back to topCitizenship and living in the UKCrime, justice and the lawDisabled peopleDriving and transportEducation and learningEmploying peopleEnvironment and countrysideHousing and local servicesMoney and taxPassports, travel and living abroadVisas and immigrationWorking, jobs and pensionsResearch and statisticsPolicy papers andconsultationsTransparencyHow government worksGet involvedHelp  Privacy  Cookies  Accessibility statement  ContactTerms and conditions  Rhestr o Wasanaethau CymraegGovernment Digital ServiceAll content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except whereotherwise stated© Crown copyright

Summary of findings in relation to 3 climate risks : overheating, flooding and water scarcity : Published 19 June 2025

Consultation : Rules for GCSE qualifications in British Sign Language : Published 30 April 2025

Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills : Annual Report and Accounts 2024-25

Schools, pupils and their characteristics : Academic Year 2024/2025

Supporting reading in secondary school : Guidance and workbook for secondary school leaders : April 2025

Turing Scheme: guidance for higher education providers, 2025 to 2026 - GOV.UKhttps://www.gov.uk/...me-international-placements-2025-to-2026/turing-scheme-guidance-for-higher-education-providers-2025-to-2026[21/01/2025 11:56:19]GuidanceTuring Scheme: guidance for highereducation providers, 2025 to 2026Published 20 January 2025Provider eligibilityHigher education (HE) providers can apply for Turing Scheme funding.To be eligible to apply, higher education providers must be:regulated and operate in the UK or British overseas territoriesresponsible for delivering higher education to the student taking part in aplacementregistered with or recognised by:the Office for Students – Englandthe Scottish Funding Council – Scotlandthe Higher Education Funding Council Wales –  Walesthe Department for the Economy – Northern Irelandthe government of the British overseas territoryYou cannot apply as an HE consortium. However, you may apply as a consortiumlead for a schools or further education (FE) application with other eligible providersin the relevant sector.You can make one application for funding per sector.GOV.UK MenuHome Education, training and skills Further and higher education, skills and vocational trainingFurther education funding Turing Scheme: international placements, 2025 to 2026Department for EducationContentsProvider eligibilityWho can go on placementsPlacementsFundingTuring Scheme: guidance for higher education providers, 2025 to 2026 - GOV.UKhttps://www.gov.uk/...me-international-placements-2025-to-2026/turing-scheme-guidance-for-higher-education-providers-2025-to-2026[21/01/2025 11:56:19]You cannot use Turing Scheme funds towards the activities of ConfuciusInstitutes.Using the services of external organisationsHE providers can pay for the services of third party organisations usingorganisational support funding to help administer Turing Scheme placements.These organisations may not be eligible to apply to the scheme themselves.You should include the names of these organisations in your application.Who can go on placementsTo take part in an HE placement, students must be either:studying on a recognised UK HE qualification or British overseas territoryequivalent (up to and including doctorate level) with the HE provider that sendsthemhave graduated within the last 12 months with a recognised UK HE qualificationor British overseas territory equivalent (up to and including doctorate level) fromthe HE provider that sends them on the placementStudents do not need to be UK nationals.Students are not eligible if they are either:located overseas and studying UK or British overseas territory qualificationsremotelypermanently studying at a campus that is not in the UK or a British overseasterritoryThere is no maximum age limit to participate in the scheme.Recent graduates must complete their placement within 12 months of graduatingfrom the HE provider. They do not need to be selected for Turing Scheme fundingbefore they graduate.We do not fund staff accompanying HE students on placements.Turing Scheme: guidance for higher education providers, 2025 to 2026 - GOV.UKhttps://www.gov.uk/...me-international-placements-2025-to-2026/turing-scheme-guidance-for-higher-education-providers-2025-to-2026[21/01/2025 11:56:19]PlacementsStudents can take work, study or volunteering placements that help them todevelop skills and improve their education and career prospects.They must take place during an academic year, between 1 September 2025 and31 August 2026.Placements in destinations with different academic periods or term dates maybegin outside these dates, but most of the placement must be within the daterange.We will only provide living costs funding for the part of the placement taking placeduring the academic year. However, students can receive funding for travel to theplacement outside of these dates if they need to travel before the UK academicyear begins.Length of placementsStudents can study, do work experience or volunteer for between 14 days and 12months.Recent graduates can do work experience or volunteer for between 14 days and12 months.Placement durations may include weekends and national holidays, as well as daysspent on the outbound journey to the placement destination from the UK and thereturn journey.Where students can go HE providers in the UK can send students to public or private organisationsoutside the UK which are active in education, training or the labour market.This includes overseas campuses of your own institution.Organisations can be:HE providerssmall, medium or large enterprises, including social enterpriseslocal, regional or national public bodiessocial partners or other representatives of working life, including chambers ofcommerce, craft, professional associations, trade unions and research institutesfoundationsTuring Scheme: guidance for higher education providers, 2025 to 2026 - GOV.UKhttps://www.gov.uk/...me-international-placements-2025-to-2026/turing-scheme-guidance-for-higher-education-providers-2025-to-2026[21/01/2025 11:56:19]schools, institutes or educational centres at any stage, from primary to uppersecondary education, including vocational and adult educationnon-profit organisations, associations and non-government organisationsbodies providing career guidance, professional counselling or informationservicesProviders in British overseas territories can send students to equivalentorganisations outside their overseas territory.Placements can take place in any destination, but you must follow official foreigntravel advice.Providers can apply on the basis of provisionally planned placements, where hostorganisations may not be fully confirmed.However, if successful, we expect you to deliver the aims and intent set out in yourapplication, including the proportion of placements for students fromdisadvantaged backgrounds and with special educational or additional needs or adisability (SEND). Where this is not possible, we will expect you to tell us why.Funding Turing Scheme funding is a contribution towards the costs of internationaleducational placements. In most cases, it is provided on a per-student basis.How funding will be allocatedApplications for Turing Scheme funding will be assessed. HE providers who meeta minimum score will be allocated funding. When allocating funding, DfE willconsider:how much budget is availablehow many providers have achieved the required minimum scoreshow many students from disadvantaged backgrounds providers propose tosupportapplication scoreshow many placements, including placements for students from disadvantagedbackgrounds and SEND can be funded across the sectorYou should not use Turing Scheme funding towards any costs that are alreadycovered by another source of funding, including from: a local authorityTuring Scheme: guidance for higher education providers, 2025 to 2026 - GOV.UKhttps://www.gov.uk/...me-international-placements-2025-to-2026/turing-scheme-guidance-for-higher-education-providers-2025-to-2026[21/01/2025 11:56:19]student financea devolved governmentTravel fundingDfE will provide funding towards the direct costs of travel for HE students fromdisadvantaged backgrounds, for one return journey to the destination theplacement takes place in, including transfers.We will provide funding for each student based on a travel grant for eachdestination. There is a list of destinations and grant rates.If the cost of travel is below the suggested rate, you can use the difference fortravel costs in other placements.Students can travel to the placement from a location outside the UK or Britishoverseas territory but can only be funded at the standard grant rate.Students can return from a different location to the placement, to allow for non-Turing Scheme funded activity, but they can only be funded at the standard grantrate.We may request evidence of the actual travel costs.You must:ensure that total travel claims do not exceed the granted amountreturn any travel funding that is not spent on eligible travel activity to the DfEContribution to living costsWe will provide funding to help with daily living costs for each student. The amount each student can receive depends on the group the destination is in.Groups are based on an assessment of the general cost of living in thosedestinations:group 1 – higher cost of livinggroup 2 – lower cost of livingInformation on the destinations in each group is available in the list of destinationsand grant rates. For 2025 to 2026 these have been updated to include moredestinations.Turing Scheme: guidance for higher education providers, 2025 to 2026 - GOV.UKhttps://www.gov.uk/...me-international-placements-2025-to-2026/turing-scheme-guidance-for-higher-education-providers-2025-to-2026[21/01/2025 11:56:19]There are different rates depending on the length of the placement. Students whocomplete a placement lasting more than 57 days will receive the 57 to 365 daysrate for the whole placement, including the first 14 to 56 days.Placements for students from non-disadvantaged backgroundsThe funding we will provide is:Placement duration Group 1 Group 214 to 56 days £19 per day £17 per day57 to 365 days £14 per day £12 per dayPlacements for students from disadvantaged backgroundsThe funding we will provide is:Placement duration Group 1 Group 214 to 56 days £23 per day £21 per day57 to 365 days £18 per day £16 per dayExtra funding for students from disadvantaged backgroundsThe Turing Scheme prioritises students from disadvantaged backgrounds whomight face particular challenges meeting the cost of an international placement. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds can receive extra funding for readinessto travel, travel, and higher rates for living costs in higher education.We generally define these students as people who meet any of the followingcriteria:someone with an annual household income of £25,000 or lesssomeone who receives universal credit or income-related benefits because theyare either financially supporting:themselvesthemselves and someone who is dependent on them, such as a child orpartnersomeone with experience of being in care or who is a care leaver – includinganyone who is or has been in care, or from a looked after background, at anystage of their lifeTuring Scheme: guidance for higher education providers, 2025 to 2026 - GOV.UKhttps://www.gov.uk/...me-international-placements-2025-to-2026/turing-scheme-guidance-for-higher-education-providers-2025-to-2026[21/01/2025 11:56:19]a carer, meaning anyone who both:looks after a family member, partner or friend who needs help because oftheir illness, frailty, disability, a mental health problem or an addiction, andcannot cope without their supportis not paid for this caresomeone who is estranged – including anyone who has had no contact withtheir biological or adoptive parents for 12 months or more, or the relationshipwith their parents has broken down within the last 12 monthsa refugee or an asylum seekerThis list is not exhaustive. You can include students who do not meet these criteriabut may still share similar characteristics, meaning they are less able to meet thecost of an international placement.Students who are underrepresented in international placementsWhen you apply, we’ll also ask you to set out how you will support students andapprentices from groups that are underrepresented in international study and workplacements.Underrepresented groups for the scheme include:ethnic minorities, including white minoritiespeople with special educational needs or disabilities (SEND), including peoplewith additional learning needs (ALN) in Wales and people with additionalsupport needs (ASN) in Scotlandpart-time studentsPart-time students include those recorded as studying:part-timefull-time on courses lasting less than 24 weekson block releaseduring the evenings onlySome of these students and apprentices may also be considered from adisadvantaged background, if they share characteristics that mean that they areless able to meet the costs of an international placement.We will review the eligibility criteria for students from disadvantaged backgroundsfor future years of the scheme.Readiness to travel  We will provide funding to help students from disadvantaged backgrounds prepareto travel.Turing Scheme: guidance for higher education providers, 2025 to 2026 - GOV.UKhttps://www.gov.uk/...me-international-placements-2025-to-2026/turing-scheme-guidance-for-higher-education-providers-2025-to-2026[21/01/2025 11:56:19]You must only use readiness to travel funding for:passportsvisa applications and reasonable associated costs such as translateddocuments, travel to appointments and police certificatesvaccinestravel insurancemedical certificatesYou should apply using estimated costs associated with the items, as they will bepaid as actual costs rather than based on set rates.Extra funding for students with SENDWe will provide extra funding for students if their HE provider says they attend as astudent with special educational or additional needs or a disability, including ASNin Scotland and ALN in Wales. You can claim support for additional costs that these students may face oninternational placements.For example, we will fund visits, of up to 3 days, where staff or students may needto visit the host destination to carry out pre-placement checks. You must outlinewhy you need the funds when you apply for the scheme.When students are in receipt of Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA), you shouldnot apply for costs that are already funded by DSA. You can still apply for SENDsupport for costs that are not funded through DSA.You should also not apply for additional SEND funding unless requesting fundingfor costs that are not usually covered by DSA, such as pre-mobility visits.We recommend that providers who are successful with their applications letstudents know as soon as possible so they can contact their DSA needs assessoror relevant student finance body, and inform them that their placement is goingahead.You will need to show the estimated costs associated with students with SEND.These will be paid as actual costs rather than based on set rates.Organisational supportWe will provide funding to support administration and implementation costs.Turing Scheme: guidance for higher education providers, 2025 to 2026 - GOV.UKhttps://www.gov.uk/...me-international-placements-2025-to-2026/turing-scheme-guidance-for-higher-education-providers-2025-to-2026[21/01/2025 11:56:19]We will provide £315 per student for the first 100 students, and £180 per studentafter that.You must only use organisational support funding for:direct staffing costs which are proportionate with running placements, includinglanguage preparation and student ambassadors involved in the schemecosts associated with appointing an external organisation (such as a privatecompany) to administer and implement placements, including languagepreparation and paying programme fees to placement providersexternal audit feesroom bookings for preparatory or post-placement eventsYou cannot use organisational support funding for any other activity, including:promoting or marketing the schemeappointing an external organisation to write your applicationIT service costs such as licenses, software, or hardwarecontingency funding for other budgets or to cover emergenciesstaff accompanying students on placementsstaff or student visits to attend events with current or potential partners inside oroutside the UKYou cannot claim organisational support for placements at overseas campuses ofyour own organisation.Direct staffing costs may be:short-term costsentire rolesproportions of entire roles, for example if the staff member has otherresponsibilities not associated with running placementsYou will need to record the costs incurred for staffing because of runningplacements directly.Where any of the eligible organisational support costs are paid directly bystudents, you may give them the money, but you will need to collect receipts.When you apply, you will need to set out how you will use organisational supportfunds to support your project, including how procurement of external servicesrepresents value for money.You must regularly report how much of this funding you spend and return anyunused funds to DfE.   You should keep evidence of any expenditure and be prepared to provide adetailed breakdown on request.Turing Scheme: guidance for higher education providers, 2025 to 2026 - GOV.UKhttps://www.gov.uk/...me-international-placements-2025-to-2026/turing-scheme-guidance-for-higher-education-providers-2025-to-2026[21/01/2025 11:56:19]Help us improve GOV.UKTo help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know moreabout your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opensin a new tab).Services and informationBenefitsBirths, death, marriages and careBusiness and self-employedChildcare and parentingCitizenship and living in the UKCrime, justice and the lawDisabled peopleDriving and transportEducation and learningEmploying peopleEnvironment and countrysideHousing and local servicesMoney and taxGovernment activityDepartmentsNewsGuidance and regulationResearch and statisticsPolicy papers andconsultationsTransparencyHow government worksGet involvedThis may include items such as:receiptsquotesrecords of how staff time has been spentBack to topTuring Scheme: guidance for higher education providers, 2025 to 2026 - GOV.UKhttps://www.gov.uk/...me-international-placements-2025-to-2026/turing-scheme-guidance-for-higher-education-providers-2025-to-2026[21/01/2025 11:56:19]Passports, travel and living abroadVisas and immigrationWorking, jobs and pensionsHelp  Privacy  Cookies  Accessibility statement  ContactTerms and conditions  Rhestr o Wasanaethau CymraegGovernment Digital ServiceAll content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except whereotherwise stated© Crown copyright

Not a member yet

Effectiveness of school mental health awareness interventions : Universal approaches in English secondary schools : February 2025

Children and Young People’s Services Formula Review : Final Evaluation Report : February 2025

Skills England : Sector skills needs assessments : Professional and Business Services : June 2025

Summary of findings in relation to 3 climate risks : overheating, flooding and water scarcity : Published 19 June 2025

Consultation : Rules for GCSE qualifications in British Sign Language : Published 30 April 2025

Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills : Annual Report and Accounts 2024-25

Schools, pupils and their characteristics : Academic Year 2024/2025

Supporting reading in secondary school : Guidance and workbook for secondary school leaders : April 2025

Turing Scheme : guidance for higher education providers, 2025 to 2026 : Published 20 January 2025

2023 Industry Training Board (ITB) review : Department for Education’s response to the recommendations of the review : January 2025

37,325

37,499