91����

Government buying schemes are no substitute for proper funding, leaders have warned, in response to claims that schools could save thousands on energy and supply teacher costs.

The warning comes the week after the Department for Education released a series of findings about the amounts schools could save through its .

The programme, launched in December, aims to make school finances stretch further across energy, supply teaching and banking by using DfE frameworks and deals.

In a push towards these schemes, the DfE published an last week, which estimates that a typical secondary school could have saved £12,600 on electricity and £10,600 on gas in 2024-25.

For primaries, the estimated savings were £2,500 on electricity and £2,400 on gas.

A separate released at the same time says secondaries could save £68 a day for each supply teacher, equivalent to 24 per cent, through a new framework capping supply agencies’ profit margins. The saving was £12 per day for primaries and £54 for special schools.

However, the energy report says the schools benchmarked were a “relatively low proportion” of the school estate - ranging from 88 to 182 schools - and a self-selecting sample, meaning conclusions should be treated with caution.

The supply teacher report also says the teacher cost and wage data were collected in a 2023 survey and may not accurately reflect current costs.

Savings for schools ‘likely to be marginal’

Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said schools appreciated the government’s efforts to help them get the best value from energy contracts and when hiring supply staff.

However, he said: “We would caution against any suggestions that this is anywhere near enough to address the education funding crisis.

“In reality, schools and colleges are already striving to keep these costs to a minimum, and any additional savings, while helpful, are likely to be marginal rather than substantial.”

“Benchmarking and frameworks are not a substitute for the sufficient and sustainable funding needed by the sector,” he added.

Last week’s energy report highlights a new Energy for Schools service, which aims to help schools access competitive energy prices and reduce the burden of procuring contracts individually.

‘Leap of faith’ on rolling contracts

However, the trust sector has raised concerns that, while the energy prices appear competitive, the deals may not work for all schools.

For example, some trusts have previously preferred fixed-rate energy contracts, running for between one and three years, to provide certainty for budget planning.

But the DfE deal is based on prices fixed one month at a time, and schools must give a lengthy 30-month notice period to leave the rolling contract, creating what one source described as a “leap of faith” for trusts considering signing up.

The Confederation of School Trusts (CST) said that, although effective procurement can produce savings, schools “remain at the mercy of worldwide markets as much as anyone else”.

Avoiding ‘sharky energy brokers’

Nexus Multi Academy Trust, a 20-school specialist trust in Sheffield and Nottingham, was one of the first MATs to use the energy purchasing option as part of the Maximising Value for Pupils programme.

“Our contracts had been split across local authority deals with public purchasing organisations and some sharky energy brokers which had secured individual deals with our schools,” said Lana Stoyles, executive director for business transformation.

“It was messy and hard to manage, and schools didn’t have the commercial expertise to manage the brokers putting them into awful deals.”

Nexus worked with the DfE and the Government Commercial Agency on energy procurement after facing significant energy price rises. This support enabled the trust to keep heated swimming pools, which provide therapeutic support for pupils, open.

“It was a huge cost avoidance for our schools,” Ms Stoyles said.

‘Grossly unrealistic’

However, policymakers need to be realistic, trust leaders have warned.

“There’s definitely merit in the approach and offer,” said Warren Carratt, CEO of Nexus. “But it needs time. We find some of the wider offer has gaps or isn’t fit for purpose.

“There is definitely work needed to help schools consistently reduce costs and increase how we secure value for money, but that is a transformation programme in and of itself, and it’s too simplistic to assume there is a common starting point across the sector.

“It would be grossly unrealistic to assume that some updated guidance will release millions of pounds of savings for schools in time to offset a pay award.”

Next year’s teacher pay deal is yet to be announced, but there are widespread fears that it will not be fully funded by the government.

Adrian Ball, chief executive of Grace Schools multi-academy trust, which runs 38 schools, said the procurement options suggested by the DfE are likely to be of more use to small trusts or single schools with less capacity to procure effectively.

”We’ve secured better energy deals ourselves than those that were available in the DfE scheme, and would always use our procurement specialist rather than simply rely on a DfE scheme,” he said.

The measures the DfE suggests could bring about savings, Mr Ball said, but these will not be evenly distributed across the sector.

Frameworks ‘must be optional’

The DfE’s supply teacher report says potential savings would come from the , launched this year, which aims to cap agency margins.

The DfE has promoted the framework as a requirement for academy trusts from September, although alternative arrangements are allowed if the rates are no higher than the new cap.

David Clayton, CEO of Endeavour Learning Trust, which runs 10 schools in the North West, said the trust tapped into elements of the MPV programme that could add value, and welcomed the attempt to help make the most of limited resources.

But he said it is important that frameworks “remain a tool rather than a requirement”

“Schools and trusts operate in very different contexts, and many have invested considerable time in building strong relationships with local suppliers that deliver high-quality services and good value for money,” he said.

“Maintaining flexibility for leaders to make decisions that reflect the needs of their communities will be essential to ensuring the scheme achieves its aims,” he added.

‘No substitute’ for better funding

Natalie Highfield, senior policy officer at the NAHT school leaders’ union, said national procurement frameworks could help schools to benefit from economies of scale and potentially reduce workload.

However, she said they must retain flexibility so schools can choose what works best for their setting.

Ms Highfield added: “Savings estimates are based on averages and won’t be realised by all schools, so transparency about what is achievable in practice is important.

“While these frameworks can play a supporting role, they are not a substitute for addressing the wider funding pressures facing schools.”

Risk of innovation being ‘stifled’

Steve Rollett, deputy chief executive of the CST, said that while group procurement deals can save money, trusts having the freedom to do new things is more helpful for innovation and cost savings.

“We worry that in trying to be helpful, the department risks a one-size-fits-all approach that risks stifling progress,” he added.

��