November 2025

jerseyauditoffice.je  R.159/2025

The purpose of the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG), fulfilled through the Jersey Audit Office (JAO), is to provide independent assurance to the people of Jersey on the extent to which public money is spent economically, efficiently and effectively and on whether the controls and governance arrangements in place within public bodies demonstrate value for money. The C&AG's remit includes the audit of financial statements and wider consideration of public funds, including internal financial control, value for money and corporate governance.

This report can be found on the Jersey Audit Office website at https://www.jerseyauditoffice.je/

If you need a version of this report in an alternative format for accessibility reasons, or any of the exhibits in a different format, please contact enqu[email protected] with details of your request.

All information contained in this report is current at the date of publication.

The Comptroller and Auditor General and Jersey Audit Office are not responsible for the future validity of external links contained within the report.

All information contained in this report is © Copyright Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Jersey Audit Office, with the exception of extracts included from external sources, which are © Copyright to those external sources.

The information contained in this report is for non-commercial purposes only and may not be copied, reproduced, or published without proper reference to its source. If you require the material contained in the report for any other purpose, you are required to contact [email protected] with full details of your request.

Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General: November 2025

This report has been prepared in accordance with Article 20 of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Jersey) Law 2014.

Contents

Summary  4

Introduction  4 Key Findings  6 Conclusions  8

Objectives and scope of the audit 9

Detailed findings  11

Education Reform Programme establishment and governance 11

Policy development  16

Schools funding and governance 18

New and existing services 24

Inclusion  35

Closure of the Education Reform Programme 40 Appendix One – Audit Approach  46 Appendix Two – Summary of Recommendations 50

Summary

Introduction

1. Education in Jersey is the responsibility of the Children, Young People, Education and Skills Department (CYPES).  
2. In 2019 an independent review commissioned by the then Minister for Education examined pupil attainment and school funding in Jersey. The Independent School Funding Review (ISFR) report published in October 2020 concluded that: Overall, there is a significant gap between current provision and the aspiration for a world class education system.
3. The ISFR report assessed that additional annual funding of £8.5 million was required for education in Jersey and that other pressures in the education system added a further £3.1 million of deficit at that time. The proposed additional £11.6 million for the statutory education system, based on the 2019 budget, represented a 13% uplift.
4. In 2021 the Government of Jersey launched the Education Reform Programme (ERP). The initial funding for the ERP was approved in the Government Plan 2021 - 24 for a four year period to 2024 and recurring thereafter. Exhibit 1 contains more detail.

Exhibit 1: ERP Funding

 Source: Government Plans 2021-24

5. The ERP was formally closed in March 2024 with any remaining works forming part of business as usual for 2024. The additional funding associated with the ERP is now part of the core budget of CYPES.
6. The ERP was intended to deliver:

• higher attainment and achievement for Jersey's children and young people

• improved wellbeing and mental health for Jersey's children and young people

• higher standards of teaching and support for students with additional needs

• more efficient use of public money in the delivery of education, with better targeting of funding for the students that need this most

• improved relationships with local business, and a strengthened economy; and

• improved reputation of schools, the workforce and the Government of Jersey.

7. One of the objectives of the ERP was to commission an independent review of inclusion. In December 2021, the UK's National Association for Special Educational Needs (nasen) published its review of Jersey's practices and policies concerning inclusion. This identified that the prevailing approach to education in Jersey was based on separating provision and that there was an opportunity to move to a continuum of inclusion. The 50 recommendations from the nasen review were integrated into the ERP. The Government Plan 2023-26 approved additional funding specifically targeted at inclusion of £6.1 million for each year of the Plan from 2023 and recurring thereafter.
8. This audit has evaluated whether the Government has taken and is taking an approach to reforming education that:

• has clear short-, medium- and longer-term objectives derived from high quality evidence and robust risk analysis

• is designed to demonstrate improved educational outcomes; and

• is delivering value for money.

9. The audit examined the primary school provision comprising 22 non-fee-paying State primary schools funded by the schools funding formula, two fee-paying State primary schools funded by the average weighted pupil formula (AWPU) and two fee-paying grant subsidised schools. The audit examined secondary school provision comprising four non-fee-paying State secondary schools which cover the 11-16 age group, and one for the 14-18 age group, two fee-paying State secondary schools funded by AWPU and two fee-paying grant subsidised secondary schools. The audit also covered two special schools.
10. The audit did not examine private schools which receive no Government funding.

11. When the ERP was established there was no articulation of what was meant by a world-class' education system.  There was an absence of an Education Strategy setting out what the Government expected to achieve to deliver its ambition of a world-class' education system and the Government did not specify the expected standards for such a system.
12. The ERP Board undertook effective project management and tracking of funded projects. The ERP Board focussed primarily on the ISFR recommendations relating to financial governance and new and existing services. The ERP Board did not adopt the same approach to monitoring and tracking the policy development options that had been recommended as these were not prioritised for delivery by successive Ministers.
13. A high standard of financial governance was adopted for allocating the additional ERP funding in accordance with the recommendations in the ISFR report. However, while the individual projects had clear principles and rationale for implementation, and some had clear indications of the way that results might be measured, there was no clear quantification of outcomes that were expected. The financial governance for monitoring how the money was actually spent, and the benefits realised as a consequence, are less clear.  
14. The ISFR report identified a set of policy options that could have significant impacts on both outcomes for children and for the funding system. It is the implementation of new policies that is likely to have the most impact on outcomes. While work has been progressed in five of the eight policy areas identified, at the time of my fieldwork the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning had determined that the remaining three areas will not be pursued. These areas are: reviewing the approach to academic selection; considering options for partnerships, mergers and leadership models; and reviewing the relationship between the Government and fee-paying schools.
15. One of the ISFR recommendations was to develop a Digital Strategy for Education. A digital strategy was drafted in 2023 covering a number of different areas to address the significant technical debt in education. Some actions have been completed but much work remains. A high level delivery plan was drafted in September 2025 to highlight progress to date and set out what remains to be done. The delivery plan does not however set out Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or resourcing.
16. The primary objective of the ERP school funding formula project was to implement a radically simpler funding formula so all schools and colleges have transparent

and equitable budgets and the funding system is flexible for the future. This has been partially achieved.

17. Following the allocation of £5.5 million of additional funding the schools budget deficit of £3.31 million for 2020 was reduced to a surplus of £240,000 during the first two years of the ERP. Since then, the overall schools' deficit position has deteriorated year on year. The forecast has ranged from an overspend of £3 million to an overspend of £4.6 million over the first nine months of 2025. The reasons for the largest variances in school spend as reported to the Education Finance Group in June 2025 are staff funding pressure and the costs of inclusion. There are significant issues at the two special schools whose financial position has gone from a deficit of £114,000 at the end of 2022 to a forecast deficit of £2.34 million at the end of 2025.
18. Schools with reported deficits had not been required to prepare recovery plans at the time of my fieldwork, although a process is now being developed. A new financial oversight process for schools has been implemented from May 2025.
19. Several projects to develop new services and to enhance existing services were identified as part of the ERP. Funding of £17 million was awarded to these projects across four years. The work to better differentiate pupil support need based on proximity to English was a key part of the change in service. The results show that overall, there has been a reduction in the attainment gap for multilingual learners (MLL) from 2020 to 2024 at all stages of education.
20. I found it difficult to map some of the funding allocation for the Inclusion Programme to establish whether the 50 recommendations in the nasen report have been fully implemented. The recommendations tracker being used for the nasen report only includes 27 out of the 50 recommendations. For five of the 27 recommendations, the rating in the tracker was red' at the time of my fieldwork.
21. The Government has set out a vision for building an Inclusive Education and Early Years system in Jersey. This is published on the Government website and sets out the vision for inclusive education, inclusive education principles, details of the Charter published in different languages as well as guidance and activity kits for schools, nurseries and other education and learning settings.
22. The Government website refers to building a plan of action to achieve the vision which is intended to be put in place over the coming years. It refers to seven areas of activity in a five-year plan to be implemented by 2027.

23. While the overall aim of the ERP was to ensure that Jersey had a world-class education system, the Government did not define what the metrics for a world - class' system would look like or specify expected standards. Instead a decision was made to implement the ISFR recommendations to deliver improvement without an absolute benchmark.
24. Some of the structural changes that would deliver a more efficient and sustainable education system have not been progressed through the ERP. Much of the current structure remains historical.
25. With now known falling birth rates there will be an excess of provision. This is already presenting as a key issue for primary schools, and, coupled with selection of learners at the age of 14, creates duplicity and additional costs in the system. Going forward, the funding of the fee-paying sector and the relationship of the fee-paying sector with the wider system will need careful consideration. In addition, greater clarity will be required as to the role that Highlands College plays in the overall strategy.
26. The next phase of the ERP, which is currently being developed, should include a focus on curriculum, inclusion, workforce development, early years investment and refinement of funding models. As part of the next phase of the ERP it will be important to sustain good quality data in order to allocate and track resources in the most appropriate way and to define a clear strategy for achieving world-class education in Jersey.

Objectives and scope of the audit

27. The audit has evaluated whether the Government has taken and is taking an approach to reforming education that:

• has clear short-, medium- and longer-term objectives derived from high quality evidence and robust risk analysis

• is designed to demonstrate improved educational outcomes; and

• is delivering value for money.

28. The audit has considered the progress and impact of the Education Reform Programme, including the principles of inclusion, as delivered by CYPES and within a sample of statutory education providers. It has not considered post-18 education.
29. The audit has evaluated how the Government has handled the following aspects:

• identifying the highest priority risks and best practice' opportunities

• developing and implementing a relevant, robust and resourced plan of action in line with priorities and best practice

• monitoring delivery to establish if intended benefits are being delivered

• taking action:

o if things are off track

o if new risks or opportunities are identified; and

• to ensure a transfer to Business as Usual' (BAU) at a department and schools level, including through aligning systems and processes.

30. Throughout the audit I have considered four questions about the Government's approach (Exhibit 2).

Exhibit 2: Questions considered about the Government's approach

1. Is analysis of issues robust and based on high quality, adequate data and information?

4. Does the delivery plan align priorities

and resources?

Does monitoring  2. Have relevant

3. Are action plans

support benefits  stakeholders been based on clear and

realisation? meaningfully balanced

engaged at the right prioritisation of

time to help identify desired outcomes?

solutions?

Source: JAO adaptation of programme management good practice

31. The audit approach and audit criteria used for this review are detailed in Appendix One.

Detailed findings

Education Reform Programme establishment and governance

Independent School Funding Review

32. The Big Education Conversation in 2019 aimed to gather public opinion on education in Jersey. Recurring themes included concerns about resource allocation and underfunding, with feedback suggesting that funding should be more responsive to need, especially in schools with higher numbers of pupils with Special Educational Needs (SEN), English as an Additional Language (EAL), or from disadvantaged backgrounds. Issues around inclusivity, teaching quality, governance, school autonomy, and curriculum choices were also highlighted.
33. In 2019, Jersey's Government commissioned an independent review of the school funding model. Published in October 2020, the Independent School Funding Review (ISFR) report assessed primary, secondary, 16–18 academic and technical provision, special schools, and SEN provision in mainstream education.
34. The ISFR report identified that funding challenges, while not the sole factor, hindered the delivery of high-quality outcomes. It recommended prioritising:

• Short Term: Establishing a sustainable funding settlement with a simplified formula, investing in system-wide improvement (including a Teaching Excellence Fund and increased collaboration), and ensuring stronger financial governance and autonomy; and

• Medium Term: Introducing structural changes for efficient delivery of a broad curriculum, strengthening primary and post-16 offerings, increasing equity by possibly means-testing grants for fee-paying education, and reviewing the inclusion model for complex needs.

35. The ISFR report concluded that: Overall, there is a significant gap between current provision and the aspiration for a world class education system.
36. The ISFR made recommendations based around three themes:

• sustainable funding

• system improvement; and

• governance.

37. The ISFR assessed that additional annual funding of £8.5 million was required for education in Jersey and that other pressures in the education system added a

further £3.1 million of deficit. The proposed additional £11.6 million for the statutory education system, based on the 2019 budget, represented a 13% uplift.

38. In 2021 the Government of Jersey launched the Education Reform Programme (ERP). Funding of £41.9 million for the Programme was approved in the Government Plan 2021-24 for a four year period to 2024.
39. The ERP comprised a number of projects clustered into three themes:

• policy development

• funding and governance; and

• new and existing services.

40. Eight areas of transformational policy options were identified to be progressed as part of the ERP:

• reviewing the approach to academic selection

• concentrating new funding on early years

• considering options for partnerships, mergers and leadership models

• reviewing the model for inclusion

• extending the years of participation/mandatory education, skills and training

• reviewing the relationship between Government and fee-paying schools

• workforce development (including teachers' terms and conditions); and

• digital strategy for education.

41. In addition to the policy options, a number of different projects were identified to drive implementation of the recommendations set out in the ISFR in respect of funding and governance and new and existing service improvements.
42. In summary funding of £41.9 million was allocated across four years and recurring thereafter (Exhibit 3).

Exhibit 3: Overall funding allocation of projects established through the ERP

Title  Annual  2021  2022  2023  2024  Four Amount  £000  £000  £000  £000  year

total £000

£000

Implementation costs -  750  750  383  0  1,883 project team and consultancy

as required, including

Inclusion Review

Funding and governance 5,322  5,617  5,822  5,822  5,822  23,083 projects

New and existing service 5,760  1,579  4,628  4,995  5,761  16,963 provision

 Total  11,082  7,946  11,200  11,200  11,583  41,929 Source: Jersey Audit Office analysis of data provided by Government

43. Four key target outcomes were identified for the ERP:

• higher attainment and achievement for Jersey's children and young people

• improved wellbeing and mental health for Jersey's children and young people

• higher standards of teaching and support for students with additional needs; and

• more efficient use of public money in the delivery of education, with better targeting of funding for the students that need this most.

44. When the ERP was established however there was no articulation of what was meant a world-class' education system and the Government did not set out or specify the expected standards for such a system. There was an absence of an Education Strategy setting out what the Government expected to achieve to deliver its ambition of a world-class' education system. Instead a decision was made to implement the ISFR recommendations to deliver improvement without an absolute benchmark.

ERP Board

45. An ERP Board was set up in April 2021 to drive forward the recommendations from the ISFR and deliver the ERP. The membership of the Board was as follows:

• Director of Education (chair)

• ERP Director

• CYPES Head of Office

• Head of Finance Business Partnering (supporting CYPES)

• Finance Business Partner (supporting CYPES)

• Head of the School Advisory Service; and

• two headteachers – representing the secondary and primary sectors respectively.

46. The Board did not include representatives of the fee-paying schools sector and the Trade Unions.  
47. The ERP Board met monthly – with a few agreed exceptions. The Board papers were provided well in advance and were of good quality. The ERP Board focussed primarily on the recommendations relating to financial governance and new and existing services. The ERP Board did not adopt the same approach to monitoring and tracking the policy development options that had been recommended as these were not prioritised for delivery by successive Ministers.
48. A high standard of financial governance was adopted for allocating the additional funding in accordance with the recommendations in the ISFR report. The additional resources were allocated to clear projects designed to improve equality and improve attainment. All decisions on resource allocations were clearly documented and the decisions noted.
49. However, while the individual projects had clear principles and rationale for implementation and some had clear indications of the way that results might be measured, there was no clear quantification of outcomes that were expected. The financial governance for monitoring how the money was actually spent, and the benefits realised as a consequence, are less clear.
50. The Perform portfolio reporting tool operated by the Corporate Portfolio Management Office was not in place at the start of the ERP. It was utilised later in the programme to manage implementation of actions but did not contain all KPIs, finance or benefits realisation information. It served as a portfolio reporting tool rather than a tool for management information on outcomes.
51. The Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel Report on Secondary Education Funding (December 2024) recommended that for secondary education (and each key stage of education) the Government should define measurable outcomes for providing a first class education service' to students in Government provided schools. The Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning has accepted this recommendation and has a stated intention to review all existing indicators,

including those from the Children and Young People's Survey and the School Workforce Survey.

52. There will inevitably be a significant time lag between additional funding and improvement in attainment. However, the ERP Board accepted this as de facto' and focussed on project management of the individual delivery plans rather than longer term outcomes.

Recommendation

R1  Develop and publish an Education Strategy setting out the ambition for delivering

a world-class' education system with clarity about targets for performance at all stages.

Policy development

53. The ISFR report identified a set of policy options that could have significant impacts on both outcomes for children and for the funding system. It is the implementation of new policies that is likely to have the most impact on outcomes. While work has been progressed in five of the eight areas identified, the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning has determined that the remaining three areas will not be pursued at the current time. These are: reviewing the approach to academic selection; considering options for partnerships, mergers and leadership models; and reviewing the relationship between the Government and fee paying schools.
54. The policy options identified for consideration that have not been taken forward include:

• consolidating all academic selection at age 16, rather than the current dual selection at 14 and 16. This was identified has having the potential to remove the double funding of Key Stage 4 across the 11-16 schools and Hautlieu (identified as saving up to £781,000 each year), and to give all students access to a broad curriculum

• considering some selected mergers between schools, with the primary driver being economies of scale and efficiency savings

• extending the years of mandatory education, which would incur higher direct costs of provision, but would improve outcomes for some young people and stronger economic outcomes through reduction in young people becoming identified as not in education, employment or training' (NEET); and

• changing the relationship between the Government and fee-paying schools, including offering greater autonomy and potentially means testing support for fees, rather than offering subsidised fee-paying education as a universal benefit.

55. The rapidly changing population demographics in Jersey with a significantly falling birth rate now present a timely opportunity to consider and implement these policy options.
56. One of the ISFR recommendations was to develop a Digital Strategy for Education. A digital strategy was drafted in 2023 covering a number of different areas to address the significant technical debt in education. Some actions have been completed but much work remains. A high level delivery plan was drafted in September 2025 to highlight progress to date and set out what remains to be done.

57. The delivery plan sets out the timelines in quarter years from Q4 2025 to Q4 2027. The delivery plan does not however set out KPIs or resourcing. Given the ambitions, further work will be needed to ensure that the Digital Strategy is delivered.

Recommendations

R2 In the light of the falling birth rate and financial pressures, review whether the

structure of the education offer along with selection is affordable for the future. In undertaking the review:

• ensure that the role of Highlands College is clear including how it integrates into the education strategy

• consider the path to A levels for those who are not selected for Hautlieu at 14

• consider whether the funding that has been allocated to schools is sufficient to drive the outcomes desired; and

• consider how schools can achieve more autonomy, in areas such as the letting of contracts, the ability to set fees and the holding of reserves.

R3  Enhance the delivery plan for the Digital Strategy to include resourcing and key

performance indicators.

Schools funding and governance

58. Several projects were identified as part of the ERP relating to schools funding and governance with a cost of £23 million over four years (Exhibit 4).

Exhibit 4: Schools funding and governance projects

ISFR  Title  Annual  2021  2022  2023  2024  Total Rec  Amount  £000  £000  £000  £000  £000 No.

£000

1  Implement a radically  0  0  0  0  0  0

simpler funding formula

5  Resolve system deficits  5,000  5,500  5,500  5,500  5,500  22,000

through transitional

grants to give schools

space for deficit

reduction

11  Increase schools'  0  0  0  0  0  0

financial freedom

12  Strengthen school  175  117  175  175  175  642

financial governance

13  Conduct "teach-ins" to  0  0  0  0  0  0

ensure planners in

schools understand the

full funding mechanism

and schools' freedoms

and responsibilities

7  Sharing of provision and  147  0  147  147  147  441

staff between schools to

spread good practice

and offer a broader

curriculum within existing

resources  

15  Ensure central services  0  0  0  0  0  0

allocate resources in the

way most beneficial to

schools

Total  5,322  5,617  5,822  5,822  5,822  23,083 Source: Government of Jersey

School funding formula

59. The primary objective of the school funding formula project was to implement a radically simpler funding formula so all schools and colleges have transparent and equitable budgets and the funding system is flexible for the future. This has been partially achieved.

60. A project group was established to develop a new funding formula. The new formula was intended to:

• bring fee-paying and private primaries on to the same Average Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU) calculation as the non-fee-paying primaries

• standardise SEN funding mechanisms across fee-paying and private schools; and

• simplify a number of funding streams to become part of a single payment for schools.

61. The formula, first published in 2022, standardised funding mechanisms and incorporated several streams into single payments. However, due to the ISFR policy recommendations not being taken forward at that time, fee-paying and some grant-maintained schools remained on the old AWPU funding model when the new formula was introduced. The fee-paying schools continued to receive 47% of the 100% total based on the AWPU formula either as a subsidy or grant.
62. The formula has been refined and updated each year. However, the transfer of the remaining schools to the new formula remains outstanding.

Resolving systems deficits

63. The ISFR recommended that the Government resolve system deficits through transitional grants to give space for schools for deficit reduction, linked to Curriculum Led Financial Planning reviews to ensure all money is spent to best benefit pupils.
64. In transitioning to the new formula, the starting point was that some schools were running significant deficits (of more than £500,000). Where this was the case, transitional funding was provided to enable schools to reduce their deficit progressively over a small number of years. The funding was intended to give any schools in deficit a manageable path to financial recovery while re-establishing strong financial governance for the system.
65. Of the £5.5 million identified for distribution to eliminate schools' deficits, £2.34 million was delegated to the schools directly, together with £730,000 for banded funding and £570,000 allocated to specific schools. £1.86 million was used to relieve CYPES central pressures related to schools and pressure on reserves. Following the allocation of the additional funding the schools budget deficit of £3.31 million for 2020 was reduced to a surplus of £240,000 during the first two years of the ERP.

66. Since then, the overall schools' deficit position has deteriorated year on year and is forecast to be a deficit of £4.64 million or greater for 2025. The reasons for the largest variances in school spend as reported to the Education Finance Group in June 2025 are staff funding pressure and the costs of inclusion. There are significant issues at the two special schools whose financial position has gone from a deficit of £114,000 at the end of 2022 to a forecast deficit of £2.34 million at the end of 2025.
67. The numbers of pupils identified as having SEN and those with a Record of Need (RoN) have also been increasing significantly in mainstream school in the period since the implementation of the ERP and inclusion programme. This has put pressure on the financial positions of schools. Additional funding has been provided for increasing numbers of pupils with SEN. However, because of the adverse issues with the Educational Psychology service, at the time of my fieldwork there was an increasing number of children without a RoN assessment and therefore funded as SEN instead of as having any specific funding associated with a RoN.
68. Funding for SEN and RoN is pupil led with schools receiving funding depending on the numbers and graded needs of pupils. Many other jurisdictions have moved away from this method of funding, recognising that there is a disincentive to remove or lessen support for pupils as that results in the funding being reduced or removed. Since the closure of the ERP, CYPES has identified this risk and has commissioned a further review of inclusion funding approaches.
69. To support schools in using their resources as effectively as possible for their students, the transitional grants provided as part of the ERP were intended to be linked to implementing curriculum led financial planning reviews. These reviews were intended to identify and benchmark opportunities for better deployment of staff, both within the school and in collaboration with other schools on the Island. At the time of the fieldwork, no curriculum led financial planning reviews had been undertaken. This is now being undertaken by the Financial Oversight Boards.
70. In addition, schools with reported deficits had not been required to prepare recovery plans at the time of my fieldwork, although a process is now being developed. A new financial oversight process for schools has been implemented from May 2025.

Increase schools' financial freedoms

71. The ISFR recommended that the financial freedoms of schools be increased so that they can hold reserves for future challenges and can allocate their budgets to maximise the quality of education for their students.

72. The provision of information to schools to manage budgets has been problematic since the change of the financial system from JDE/Hubble to SAP/Connect. Until recently schools have been unable to review their financial position on the Government's financial system. At the time of my fieldwork some schools were operating a parallel financial system using spreadsheets and reconciling to the main system when they received information. This duplication of systems is inefficient and time-consuming to operate.
73. A workaround' has been put in place using Power BI with schools now receiving a pack each month compiled by Finance Business Partners. However, at the time of my fieldwork some schools were still not receiving up to date, accurate information to manage their budgets. One school provided information showing that their debtors had risen from £36,000 at 14 November 2022 to £327,000 at 27 June 2025 but they had been unable to ascertain the reasons for this significant increase.
74. One of the areas of work that was due to be completed in 2024 was to increase schools' financial freedom so that they can hold reserves for future challenges and can allocate their budgets to maximise the quality of their education for their students. Progress towards allowing schools to hold reserves has been slow and the policy has not been implemented.
75. The current system relies on budgets being notified to the schools around November of each year, before the start of the budget year in January. This gives schools very little time to plan, with the added complication of having a different academic year (September to August) from the Government financial year (January to December). The budget is based on a one year allocation which means that in practice, rather than give back resources if the school has budgeted prudently, or has a fortuitous underspend, the school will use the money. This can result in spend on items that would not have ordinarily been purchased. The current system is thus hampering strategic financial management. If a school overspends, then the deficit does not have to be recovered.

Strengthen schools' financial governance

76. The ISFR recommended the strengthening of school financial governance with the broader introduction of financially skilled governing bodies and the introduction of cluster-level school business managers.
77. This recommendation was assessed by CYPES as requiring approximately two additional full-time equivalent (FTE) staff for central support, and a further four part-centrally-funded (50%) cluster business managers, during the first two financial years of implementation, at a cost of £175,000.

78. Limited progress has however been made to improve the models of school governance. A pilot governance structure was put in place in the Trinity and St Martin's schools for the school year 2022-23 and was extended to June 2024. The report on the pilot concluded that an effective model has been established and tested. Other school leaders have not yet been approached to test support for this new governance structure. An alternative model with similar objectives is also being developed.

Conduct "teach-ins" to ensure planners in schools understand the full funding mechanism and schools' freedoms and responsibilities

79. Training sessions have taken place for school governors on legislation and responsibilities.  
80. Under the Public Finances Manual (PFM) Accountable Officers are required to ensure that the Annual Accounts of those bodies which receive grant funding in excess of £75,000 from the States of Jersey are published as a report to the States Assembly. In addition, under the PFM Accountable Officers should encourage bodies receiving grants of over £75,000 to publish their own Annual Accounts. The three grant funded schools (Beaulieu Convent School, De La Salle College and FCJ Primary School) all receive grants of over £75,000. The Annual Accounts for one of these schools however are not published. This is a breach of the PFM.

Sharing of staff between schools to spread good practice

81. The ISFR recommended sharing of provision and staff between schools and between schools and Highlands College to spread good practice and offer a broader curriculum within existing resource. The ISFR recommended that Government offer some seed funding for networks, including two years of part- funding for a number of shared teaching posts. The allocation of £147,000 for shared provision was not however utilised for this purpose and was used to offset overspending elsewhere in the programme.

Ensure central services allocate resources in the way most beneficial to schools

82. The ISFR report identified differences in average expenditure for each pupil between fee-paying and non-fee-paying schools during the seven years in primary and seven years in secondary school:

• primary £6,000 for each pupil; and

• secondary £9,000 for each pupil.

83. A comparison of relative funding in 2025 shows that the fee-paying primary schools received 27.6% more funding, and secondary schools received 17.8% more funding, than they would have received if based on the school funding

formula when the fees are included in the budget. However, it is estimated that this difference in funding at primary schools is now significantly less because pupil numbers have fallen much more significantly in the non-fee-paying schools. The estimated funding difference at secondary schools has though increased.

84. A policy for transferring the fee-paying schools to school funding formula is in development, with the establishment of a Project Board. Due to competing priorities and Assembly time needed to make changes to legislation this work will not be completed ahead of the 2026 elections. The Government acknowledges that the relationship between the funding of non-fee-paying and fee-paying schools requires further detailed work.
85. More work needs to be done on how the formula works best for schools to balance autonomy with a clear ambition to spend money in areas that need it the most. There will always be a tension between hypothecated funding and non - hypothecated, but this needs to be carefully managed.
86. The criteria identified in the ERP business case have not been monitored, namely:

• measurement of relative funding for fee-paying schools and other schools from baseline year to academic year 2023/24; and

• the proportion of funding spent will reduce in Key Stage 5, compared to the early years phase, to be more in line with statistical neighbours.

Recommendations

R4 Update and refine the schools funding formula to include all schools.

R5 Develop an early intervention system for financial monitoring of school budgets to

ensure that corrective action is taken earlier to prevent the level of deficits currently in the system.

New and existing services

87. Several projects were identified as part of the ERP to develop new and enhance existing services. Funding of £17 million was awarded to these projects across four years (Exhibit 5).

Exhibit 5: Funding awarded to new and existing service provision

ISFR  Title  Annual  2021  2022  2023  2024  Total Rec  Amount £000  £000  £000  £000  £000 No.  £000

2  Ensure that 16-18  900  300  600  600  900  2,400

technical education is

appropriately funded

4  Make low prior  1,396  310  931  1,101  1,397  3,739

attainment a significant

factor in determining

funding allocations

6  Increase Jersey's school  1,345  394  1,345  1,245  1,345  4,329

improvement capacity

8  Uplift to the Jersey  1,046  291  1,046  1,046  1,046  3,429

Premium

9  Strengthen the central  168  56  168  168  168  560

educational team

10  Support mental health  249  83  166  200  249  698

and wellbeing

14  Support Jersey Music  0  0  0  0  0  0

Service to become a

Trust

3  Increase the funding  656  145  372  635  656  1,808

available to support the

most significant Special

Educational Needs (SEN)

Total  5,760  1,579  4,628  4,995  5,761  16,963 Source: Government of Jersey

16–18 technical education

88. Jersey is an outlier in several respects, in relation to 16-18 education. Most notably:

• its level of funding for this stage of schooling is lower than most OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) nations

• the legally presumed age for leaving education and/or training is still 16. In all of the nations of the UK and most European nations the participation age is now 18; and

• there is no formal provision made for young people with SEN to continue in full-time education after the age of 18. As a comparison, the entitlement in the UK is to age 25 for this group.

89. The ISFR made a recommendation to ensure that 16-18 technical education is appropriately funded for the future by levelling up per-student funding in technical education and implementing the post-16 education review'.
90. The ERP Board discussed this on numerous occasions and recognised that more needed to be done to bring the Further Education sector into the ambition to increase attainment.
91. In 2021 Highlands College was awarded £300,000 to start the levelling up' process. This rose to £600,000 for 2022 and 2023 and rose again to £900,000 for 2024 onwards. This is now in the base budget for Highlands College.
92. Highlands College offers a wide range of technical and vocational courses but does not offer A level courses. The Government secondary schools for children aged 11 to 16 do not operate a sixth form which limits the availability of A levels to Hautlieu school, which accepts children aged 14 and up, or the fee-paying schools.  
93. The 2022 Government Report Further Education and Skills Actionable Agenda' contains a number of key strategic recommendations which need to be considered as part of a wider ambition for a world-class education system. The funding awarded for 16-18 provision as part of the ERP is not linked specifically to these recommendations.

Increase the funding available to schools and colleges to support students with the most significant Special Educational Needs (SEN)

94. To better reflect the cost of provision for high needs SEN students the ISFR recommended increasing the amount of banded funding by five hours for all students with a RoN, with the requirement on schools reduced from covering the

first 15 hours to the first ten. The appendix to the ISFR report referred to the fee- paying schools receiving a share of the SEN fund, allocated according to the same criteria as the non-fee-paying schools.  

95. The ISFR also recommended increasing the availability of Educational Psychologists to support implementation of this recommendation.
96. Additional funding of £1.8 million was allocated as part of the ERP.
97. There has been an increase in pupils in mainstream schools with special needs since the ISFR report (Exhibit 6).

Exhibit 6: Mainstream pupils with special needs

Source: Government of Jersey

98. There has been a similar rate of increase at the two special schools, Mont à l'Abbé and La Sente.
99. At the time of my fieldwork, there was a waiting list for RoN assessments and some schools have been making their own arrangements for these assessments.

100.  In addition to the funding provided in the ERP, further funding of £1.8 million was

allocated from the inclusion programme to students with a RoN and a further £1.1 million was allocated to students with a  RoN, due to the increasing numbers of pupils with special needs.

101.  There is a separate calculation for students with a RoN, and for students with SEN

but no RoN, in the allocation of funding. Fee-paying schools receive 100% of RoN funding for both Secondary and Primary schools, but only 47% and 22% of SEN funding respectively.

102.  Analysis of the Jersey Schools Review Framework (JSRF) reports from 2021 to

2024 shows an uneven landscape for SEN provision in Jersey. The JSRF reports the following:

Primary Schools: Typically receive stronger evaluations for teaching quality, pupil engagement, and inclusive classroom environments. Many primary schools demonstrate effective adaptations in place and early intervention strategies for SEN pupils.

Secondary Schools: While some secondaries are praised for academic rigour and inclusive ethos, others show greater variability in teaching quality and consistency of SEN support. Transition from primary to secondary is noted as a critical pressure point for SEN pupils.

103.  The JSRF reports highlight that primary schools are generally more consistent and

effective in their SEN provision, while secondary schools face more complex structural and resource challenges. The summary of reports produced by the JSRF states that addressing these disparities will require strategic investment, cross - phase collaboration, and enhanced training to ensure continuity and quality of support for all learners with SEN. The Minister and Interim Chief Officer commissioned an Island-wide review of SEN which was published in October 2025.

Make low prior attainment a significant factor in determining funding allocations

104.  The ISFR recommended making low prior attainment and English as an Additional

Language (EAL) and/or need more support as significant factors in determining funding allocations, so schools can focus resources on enabling children who fall behind to catch up.

105.  £0.9 million additional funding was allocated to low prior attainment and

£0.5 million was allocated to MLL in 2024 of which £1.1 million was included in the schools budgets and £0.3 million for MLL was included in the CYPES central budget for the recruitment of three staff, extra hours for key workers and training costs.

106.  One of the benefits expected as set out in the business case was a reduction in the

attainment gap between groups of pupils at the end of key stages of education from the 2018-19 baseline data.

107.  Attainment data in Exhibit 7 shows the movement in attainment gap. The number

of MLL pupils has increased by 19% from 2019/20 to 2024/25. Overall, there has been a reduction in the attainment gap from 2020 to 2024 at all stages of education for MLL pupils.

Exhibit 7: Movement in attainment gap from Reception to Key Stage 5 (KS5) At Reception:

At KS1

At KS2

At KS4

At KS5

Source: Government of Jersey

108.  The data relates to Government fully funded schools only because that is where

the additional funding to reduce the attainment gap was allocated.

109.  Caution is needed when comparing between academic years due to the relatively

small numbers of young people in these cohorts. Small numbers inevitably can distort percentages, but measurement is nevertheless important. The methodology for formal exams was inconsistent from 2020–2023 with Teacher Assessed Grades and Centre Assessed Grades, in those years compared with exam results before and after that period. This means that particularly for GCSE and KS5 it is important to focus on the difference between MLL and non-MLL rather than the trend which is misleading due to the inconsistency in methodologies.

110.  The JSRF reports from 2021-2024 suggest that Jersey's schools are broadly

inclusive and culturally responsive with some areas of particular strength recognised. However, the JSRF reports highlight a need for greater consistency, enhanced strategic planning, and continued investment in provision for MLL students.

School improvement

111.  As teacher quality is recognised as the strongest longer-term driver of the quality

of education in any system, the ISFR recommended Jersey's school improvement function receive additional funding to focus on teacher quality. It recommended that central investment in teacher professional development should average 2.62% of total salary costs (including on-costs) requiring funding of £1,727 per teacher per year, totalling an annual budget of £1.4 million.

112.  The additional funding allocated to improve teachers' learning and development

in 2024 totalled £1.8 million (£400,000 over the £1.4 million recommended by the ISFR). The additional funding supported increased teacher training and professional qualifications, with a notable rise in completion rates and new teachers qualifying locally. Many teachers have had opportunities to improve skills and be better equipped to deliver their roles.

113.  The benefits realisation measures in the business case were:

• a baseline to be taken for professional qualifications of school-based staff to assess the impact of the teacher excellence fund

• Continual Professional Development delivered (course/qualification, workforce group, number)

• assessment of progress for school standards (across four key review areas), as defined by the JSRF; and

• JSRF review.  

114.  There is no evidence that a baseline was undertaken of the professional

qualifications of school-based staff.

115.  There has been a significant increase in the number of teachers qualifying since

2021. In 2021-22 four teachers obtained professional qualifications, rising to 18 teachers in 2022-23 and 19 teachers in 2023-24 (including four cross phase music teachers).

116.  All 15 Jersey Graduate Teacher Training Programme (JGTTP) participants have

been employed with two subsequently leaving the Island. Teacher recruitment needs are being met by all JGTTP routes with 40 teachers qualified on Island over the last three years, 38 of whom are employed in Island schools.

117.  Early Careers Teachers are receiving support and face-to-face central training. The

15 JGTTP participants had received around 160 hours of Initial Teacher Training core content and Postgraduate Certificate in Education training at the time of my fieldwork.

118.  Assessing whether the quality of teaching has improved is less clear and is

measured through the JSRF.

Uplift to Jersey Premium

119.  One of the recommendations in the ISFR was to uplift to the Jersey Premium

payment to support socio-economic equality in the education system. The Jersey Premium has been uplifted by £1 million each year (the amount recommended by ISFR).

120.  Every school publishes a Jersey Premium report on its school website setting out

what has been achieved with the funding it has received for this. The number of pupils entitled to Jersey Premium funding has increased by 5.6% from 2019/20 to 2024/25 and has been reducing since 2020/21.

121.  Analysis of JSRF reports from 2021 to 2024 confirm that while the majority of

schools are using Jersey Premium funding effectively, there is room for improvement in strategic planning, consistency, and impact evaluation.

Strengthen the central educational team

122.  The ISFR report recommended that the Government strengthen the central

educational team so all children have timely access to specialist help when they need it.

123.  £168,000 was allocated to recruit two additional educational psychologists to work

in CYPES to increase the capacity to undertake assessments. There were however issues with the service which prevented recruitment.

124.  In November 2024 (after closure of the ERP), a service review of Jersey's

psychological service was initiated, following concerns raised about consistency and quality of services. Four areas of focus were identified from the review:

• strengthen leadership, oversight and support

• increase capacity through improved commissioning and re-design of the service

• improve communication and responsiveness; and

• expand early help and training opportunities.

125.  A change programme has recently been initiated. Funding has been identified for

2025.

Support for mental health and wellbeing training

126.  The ISFR recommended that mental health and wellbeing was supported through

a whole school approach, backed by a targeted training programme delivered within schools. A training programme was commissioned and delivered to all schools by 2023 at a cost of £177,000.

127.  The budget was then re-allocated to schools in 2024 in accordance with the school

funding formula, to support mental health, together with additional funding of £325,000.

128.  This benefit from the investment in the mental health programme is inherently

quite difficult to measure. Progress was reported by The Jersey Children and Young People's Survey Reports. The 2024 report was published by Statistics Jersey in March 2025. Chapter 12 covers self esteem and wellbeing.

129.  The Survey used the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) concept that relates to

an individual's or group's perceived physical and mental health. The Kidscreen-10 Index attempts to measure this concept. The HRQoL mean score has been falling for most year groups since 2018/2019. The 2024 Survey found that mean HRQoL scores were lower than in 2021 for all year groups apart from Year 12, with the largest fall being for Year 8, which indicates a deterioration in wellbeing during the period from 2019 to 2024.

130.  The Survey measured mental wellbeing using the UK Office of National Statistics

(ONS) set of questions ONS4. This measure asks four questions on how satisfied', worthwhile', happy' and anxious' a person feels. Compared to 2021, overall levels of anxiety have fallen significantly for males and females in all year groups and are now more similar to the levels seen in 2018. Levels of self-esteem for females in secondary schools have been falling since 2018.

131.  Based on the results of the Survey, in overall terms children's wellbeing and mental

health has deteriorated during the period of the ERP, although there has been a reduction in levels of anxiety. A deterioration of children's wellbeing and mental health over this period has been observed in other western society jurisdictions.

Support Jersey Music Service to become a Trust while setting challenging requirements on participation rates by pupils from currently under-represented schools

132.  The ISFR recommended that this model would allow Jersey Music Service to

become self-sufficient without additional cost to the taxpayer and broaden access for disadvantaged children. As part of the ERP funding the Jersey Music Service has received additional demographics funding of £286,000 to fund additional posts to support pupils with special needs.

133.  The ERP closure report notes that the recommendation to support Jersey Music

Service to become a Trust was descoped from the ERP.

134.  One of the ISFR recommendations was that the Government conduct a

comprehensive review of the inclusion model, including provision within mainstream and special schools.

135.  During 2021, the National Association for Special Educational Needs (nasen)

undertook an Independent Review of Inclusive Education and Early Years on behalf of the Government. Its report was published in December 2021. While inclusive education can be broad in its interpretation, the focus of this review was on how schools, settings and support services contribute to, or are barriers to, inclusion at a system level.

136.  nasen concluded that whilst there was some exemplary inclusive practice within

specific areas of the education system, it was not happening consistently because it was not sufficiently reinforced at a strategic, systemic and systematic level. This included the prioritisation given to realising inclusion, the allocation of resources, and the underpinning policies and processes.

137.  At the time of the nasen review, the education system was structured around

separated provision. The review made 50 recommendations across 23 areas to support Jersey in moving towards a continuum of inclusion.

138.  The ERP Board took a number of actions to ensure progress. These included:

• appointing a programme director to lead the implementation of the programme

• agreeing a governance structure and board to oversee delivery of the change; and

• successful submission of a bid to secure investment of £6.1 million (approved in the 2023-2026 Government Plan) for the inclusion review and implementation of its recommendations and to deliver improvement.

Inclusion Delivery Board

139.  In October 2022, an Inclusion Delivery Board was set up with six separate

workstreams:

• vision, charter and standards

• legislation and policy

• finance and accountability

• professional practice and process

• structure; and

• workforce and capacity.

140.  The majority of the 50 recommendations were attributed to the workstreams, with

a few being progressed outside in other streams of work.

141.  The recommendations were then prioritised by the Board, for implementation. At

the same time, the Board highlighted the immediate risks to delivery, which were limited capacity both centrally and in schools, and resource.

142.  The Board meetings were well structured with good attendance, good quality

papers and project management in place. Notes of the discussions were informative and it was clear where progress was on course' and where it was falling behind, or had greater risks to delivery. The papers were less clear however on how the projects linked to the funding that was available, and the level of the improvement expected.

143.  While most recommendations have been monitored and reported on through the

Board, evidence of progress against all the recommendations is not clear and has slowed with some senior staff departing from the programme.

Inclusion Projects

144.  In 2023, various projects were set up by the Board. The programme commenced

during 2023 but it was not possible to spend the full amount of additional allocation in that year. Total funding of £1.5 million (from the £6.1 million allocation in 2023) was retained due to the difficulties in recruitment. This funding was then used for the Spring review of CYPES' financial position and reallocated to other areas (including £747,000 to cover school overspends).

145.  The amount allocated to projects in 2024 is set out in Exhibit 8. Exhibit 8: Projects funded from inclusion growth funding

GP23 ERP /  Overview  2024  2024  2024 Front  2024 Inclusion  Budget  Budget for  Line Services  Central Budget  Schools  Budget  Budgets

£000

£000  £000  £000 Inclusion  Inclusion Project  382  382

Implementation   Implementation (project

team)

Inclusion  RON Base Increase 2023 1,790  1,790

Funding

Formula

Inclusion  RON Top up 2023  9  9

Funding

Formula

Inclusion  Nurture Provisions and 512  512

Funding  Additional Resource Centres

Formula

Inclusion  Mont à l'Abbé  575  575

Funding

Formula

Analysts and  Posts previously covered by  121  121 Early Years  now reduced ERP

Implementation Budget

(dropped from £750,000 in

2022)

Inclusion Posts  1 FTE - New Lead for  76  76

Transition -2023

Inclusion Posts  1 post to support RON  73  73

Volumes

Inclusion Posts  SEMH (Social, Emotional and  106  106

Mental Health) Executive

Head (Le Sente)

School Business  School Business Managers 657  657

Managers

Mental Health  Mental Health Workers 325  325

Attraction &  Times Educational  200  200 Advertising  Supplement - Recruitment

Early Years  Targeted 2-3 Years  535  535

Early Years  CEYS (Children and Early  262  262

Year) Team - 2023

Early Years  Integrated Check - 2023  170  170

Assessment  Assessment Support &  150  150 Support &  Therapies (Occupational /

Therapies  Speech and Language

Therapy)

Line of Business  System costs  56  56 system

SIMS Licences  Increase in cost of software  42  42

licences

Virtual School  Team Costs  34  34 Period Products  Period Products  30  30

GP23 ERP /  Total  6,105  3,868  1,041  1,196 Inclusion

Budget

Source: Government of Jersey

146.  In total £3.9 million was allocated to schools as part of the inclusion funding

formula. This included £512,000 for nurture provisions and additional resource centres (ARCs). Some ARCs were created during the ERP and some have been created afterwards.

147.  Most of the inclusion funding formula allocation related to RoN activities.

148.  Additional funding of £575,000 was allocated to Mont à l'Abbé school. As noted

earlier however this is one of the schools to continue to record a deficit.

149.  A total of £1.2 million was allocated for the recruitment of three specific posts with

an additional £200,000 allocated for attraction and advertising costs. CYPES has confirmed the appointment to these posts which included a new post to support RoN volumes.

150.  Funding for school business managers was allocated to individual schools. I have

not been provided with the details of how this allocation was spent by schools. The funding for mental health workers was allocated to schools in accordance with the schools funding formula for mental health.

151.  In total £1 million was allocated to projects related to early years. This was

allocated for additional staff within Government as well as to projects run by third party organisations. Additional therapeutic support services have also been introduced using the allocated inclusion funding.

152.  I have found it difficult to map some of the funding allocation for the Inclusion

programme to establish whether the 50 recommendations in the nasen report have been fully implemented. The recommendations tracker being used for the nasen report only includes 27 out of the 50 recommendations and five of the 27 are rated as red'.

153.  The Government has set out a vision for building an Inclusive Education and Early

Years system in Jersey. This is published on the Government website and sets out the vision for inclusive education, inclusive education principles, details of the Charter published in different languages as well as guidance and activity kits for schools, nurseries and other education and learning settings.

154.  The Government website refers to building a plan of action to achieve the vision

which is intended to be put in place over the coming years. It refers to seven areas of activity in a five-year plan to be implemented by 2027.

155.  Progress is planned to be monitored through:

• the revised JSRF; and

• the early years Quality Framework and childcare registration and regulation process.

156.  The Jersey Children and Young People's Survey which takes place every two years

will continue to monitor changes in children's experiences and provide an indication of the impact of changes made.

Closure of the Education Reform Programme

157.  Measuring outcomes from investment in education is inherently difficult as it is

hard to demonstrate the cause and effect' as there are so many variables. It is also something that does not happen immediately and can only be measured over longer periods of time.

158.  The ERP was formally closed in March 2024. When the ERP was formally closed,

officers produced an ERP closure report. This report was approved by the ERP Board and was signed off by the Chief Officer.

159.  The closure report for the Programme identified the benefits and performance

measures as shown in Exhibit 9. These benefits and performance measures do not align directly with the four key targets outcomes identified when the ERP was established.  

Exhibit 9: Benefits and performance measures

Source: Government of Jersey

160.  The Government identified a number of mechanisms for collecting and

interpreting data through review frameworks and analytics. However the Government has been concerned about comparative attainment data being misinterpreted due to the small cohorts and size of the Island. Little attainment data is published by the Government.

161.  The Government receives numerous requests under the Freedom of Information

Act for such attainment data and there is clearly an interest from the public in this data. Data is widely published in other jurisdictions regardless of cohort size.

162.  The following paragraphs summarise the data produced in March 2024 to

evidence the impact of the ERP at that point.

Improved attainment to be achieved at the end of key stages of education

163.  Improvements in attainment from 2017/18 to 2023/24 were identified for the end

of foundation stage, KS2 and KS4.

164.  For GCSE and A level results, CYPES has recently started to calculate Assessment

of Learning and Academic Standards which measures student progress / value added analytics (Alps) data at KS4 and KS5. Some schools have already been using this to assess how well they are doing.

165.  At KS5, overall A level results have declined slightly during this period but have

likely been affected by the additional number of pupils progressing to this level as a result of Teacher Assessments in 2021 and 2022. At KS5 overall technical and vocational results have also declined slightly during this period but have also likely been affected by the additional number of pupils progressing to this level as a result of Teacher Assessments in 2021 and 2022.

The quality of teaching and learning will improve

166.  The JSRF (2016-2024) required review teams to use inspection methodology to

gather evidence to evaluate the quality of education offered across four areas:

• achievement

• effectiveness of teaching

• behaviour, personal development and welfare; and

• leadership and management.

167.  An analysis provided by the SIAS (School Improvement and Advisory Service)

during the audit shows that there was a requirement for school leaders and reviewers to focus on the achievement of vulnerable groups. This was interwoven throughout each of the four key judgement areas.

168.  The initial round of unpublished pilot reviews (2016-19) identified:

• a small minority of primary and secondary schools that required the establishment of support boards; and

• a significant number required ongoing monitoring visits.

169.  These support boards and visits secured and identified school improvement,

including in the quality of their inclusive provision for vulnerable pupils.

170.  By the end of first round of live reviews (completed by July 2024):

• there were no schools where reviewers recommended the establishment of support boards; and

• only a small number of schools required an ongoing monitoring visits. In all cases the off-Island reviewer identified that school leaders were taking effective actions to address the issues identified in the recommendations made at the time of the JSRF report.

171.  The SIAS has concluded that as the evaluation of the provision for MLL, SEN and

Jersey Premium students are interwoven into the judgement criteria, this pattern of JSRF outcomes over time demonstrates that improvement has been made as a result of the ERP and Inclusion funding.

172.  The JSRF school reports suggest that while there is a strong commitment to

supporting pupils with low prior attainment, practice is inconsistent across Jersey's schools. Strengthening transition support, curriculum adaptation, and impact evaluation are key to ensuring these pupils make sustained progress over time. In the minority of JSRF reports where attendance issues have been identified in a school, the report's recommendation section targets the strengthening of attendance strategies as part of broader school improvement. There is scope for more strategic use of data, cross-school benchmarking, and targeted investment to ensure that attendance levels support, not hinder, educational equity and excellence.

173.  An updated JSRF is being rolled out from September 2025.

Pupils, parents and staff will be more satisfied with the service received by schools and the department

174.  The Inclusive Education and Early Years Baseline Report published in September

2023 collected responses from two online surveys which closed on 22 March 2023. 536 children and young people aged 3 to 19 provided their views. A total of 676 parents and carers responded to the survey and commented on the experiences of 813 children. A total of 230 practitioners responded to the survey. CYPES has not formally identified any baseline metrics for monitoring progress in stakeholder satisfaction. However the report contained a number of measures which could be used for this purpose.

175.  This research found that nearly half of the parents and carers (49.6%) who

responded felt that the education provided in schools today is reflective of the diversity of pupils on the Island. This view was echoed by half of the practitioners (51.3%) who participated in the survey.

176.  Most education practitioners (79.6%) said that the school, nursery, college or

setting they work in creates an inclusive environment that enables all children to thrive. However, 16.9% of parents and carers, and 13.1% of practitioners disagreed and stated that more should be done to make children and young people feel included. 13.1% of parents and carers who responded also stated their child did not feel welcome and supported by their setting.

177.  Around a quarter of practitioners who responded said LGBTQIA+ (26.5%), and

disadvantaged pupils (25.3%) were not appropriately represented in resources, topics and material taught in schools on the Island. About a fifth of practitioners said that mental health issues (19.2%) and advantaged pupils (20.5%) were not appropriately represented.

178.  Overall, both practitioners and parents rated primary and early years settings as

more inclusive than secondary.

ERP2 and Inclusion going forward

179.  While most of the recommendations from the ISFR were taken forward, not all

were able to be progressed in the timeframe allocated to the ERP which closed formally in March 2024.

180.  A number of areas have been taken forward under what is known as ERP2, but no

formal resources have been allocated to drive the new programme forward and a formal programme of reform has not yet been established. The areas that have been moved into ERP2 are:

• sharing of provision and staff between schools and Highlands college to spread good practice and offer a broader curriculum within existing resources

• ensuring central services allocate resources in a way most beneficial to schools by giving Headteachers a leading role in their governance, and including Heads in the governance of the central schools improvement function

• further work on inclusion to implement the nasen recommendations

• workforce development; and

• concentrating new funding on early years.

181.  Work is on-going to develop a new framework for the improvement function, as all

schools will have been reviewed under the first cycle of reviews. The development of the new framework has included discussions with Headteachers and is due to be rolled out in 2025.

182.  New proposals have been approved for significant investment in early years in the

Government Plan 2025 – 2028.

183.  ERP2 has been slow to start, as the previous programme finished in March 2024.

There are still areas that will need formal oversight, despite many of the investment areas being transferred to a business as usual' model. There have been significant changes in the leadership of the department and directorate. CYPES will need to ensure that sufficient resource and attention is given to driving forward both the benefits from ERP2 and those areas which have been formally transferred in when a formal programme is established.

Recommendations

R6  Publish comprehensive attainment information including a commentary on the

context as a matter of routine.

R7 Ensure that the remaining projects and continuing outcomes from the Education

Reform Programme continue to be driven forward and, in doing so, capture and

learn from the areas for improvement identified in this report on a systematic basis. R8  Apply appropriate programme management disciplines including a focus on

tracking outcomes and benefits to future education reform programmes and the

investment planned in early years.

R9  Ensure that future education reform programmes continue to track the anticipated

benefits and outcomes from the overall Education Reform Programme.

Audit Approach

The audit has used a combination of a:

• Problem-oriented approach – is the Education Reform Programme well designed to solve identified problems and take identified opportunities?

• Result-oriented approach – is the Education Reform Programme delivering or likely to deliver its objectives? and

• System-oriented approach – do (or will) underlying systems and processes enable the effective delivery of the Education Reform Programme objectives?

The audit considered four questions about the Government's approach:

1. Is analysis of issues robust and based on high quality, adequate data and information?

4. Does the delivery plan align priorities

and resources?

Does monitoring  2. Have relevant

3. Are action plans

support benefits  stakeholders been based on clear and

realisation? meaningfully balanced

engaged at the right prioritisation of

time to help identify desired outcomes?

solutions?

Source: JAO adaptation of programme management good practice

The documents reviewed included:

• Activities to introduce the Inclusive Education Vision and Principles

• Analysis of benefits realisation from the ERP and Inclusion programme

• Analysis of ERP and Inclusion funding allocations and expenditure

• Analysis of schools' financial position from 2020 to estimated 2025

• Building an Inclusive Education and Early Years system in Jersey (Government of Jersey website)

• Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel Report on Secondary Education Funding (December 2024)

• Covid-19: Jersey Education Recovery Report

• CPMO Perform project management system

• Documentation from Victoria College in connection with the governance and performance management arrangements at the College

• ERP Board Papers 2021-2024

• Examples of calculations of schools' budgets using School Funding Formula and AWPU

• Inclusion Board Papers 2022-2025

• Inclusive Education Guidance for Schools, Colleges, Nurseries and Learning Settings

• Internal Audit reports in connection with ERP

• Jersey Children and Young People's Survey Report 2024 (March 2025)

• Jersey Funding Formula for Schools: Rationale and Calculations 2024 (May 2024)

• Jersey Oracy Development Programme Evaluation Report 2025

• Jersey Youth Parliament's Education Reform Campaign Group report on Personal, Social, Health, and Economic (PHSE) Education (August 2022)

• Jersey's Secondary Education System Report by the Policy Centre Jersey (July 2024)

• nasen report recommendations tracker

• Participation and Engagement Feedback Report: Children, Young People and Families' Plan 2024-2027

• Policy Brief on Education by the Policy Centre Jersey (April 2025)

• School Improvement and Advisory Service (SIAS) 2023/24 Report for Senior Leaders

• States of Jersey Early Years Plan (October 2024)

• States of Jersey Medium Term Financial Plan 2017-2019: Amendment to Funding for Fee Paying Schools (May 2017)

• States of Jersey: Response of the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning to the Scrutiny Panel Report on Secondary Education Funding (January 2025)

• The Big Education Conversation Findings Report

• The Further Education and Skills Actionable Agenda (December 2022)

• The Inclusive Education and Early Years Baseline Report (September 2023)

• The Independent School Funding Review Report (ISFR) and Appendix (October 2020)

• The NASEN Independent Review of Inclusive Education and Early Years (December 2021)

• Thinkpiece: Improving Education Outcomes in Jersey by the Policy Centre Jersey (March 2025)

The following people contributed information through interviews or by correspondence:

• Acting Chief Officer, CYPES

• Bursar, Victoria College

• Chair of Governors, Victoria College

• Chief Internal Auditor

• Corporate Portfolio Manager

• Data Lead for CYPES

• Education Reform Programme Director

• Finance Business Partners, CYPES

• Former Director of Education, CYPES

• Head of School Review and Inspection

• Headteacher, D'Auvergne Primary School

• Headteacher, Victoria College

• Joint Head of School Improvement and Advisory Service

• NEU and Head of Faculty at Hautlieu School

• Senior Advisor Jersey Policy Centre

• Senior Corporate Portfolio Officer

The fieldwork was carried out by affiliates working for the Comptroller and Auditor General, during June to August 2025.

Summary of Recommendations

R1  Develop and publish an Education Strategy setting out the ambition for delivering

a world-class' education system with clarity about targets for performance at all stages.

R2 In the light of the falling birth rate and financial pressures, review whether the

structure of the education offer along with selection is affordable for the future. In undertaking the review:

• ensure that the role of Highlands College is clear including how it integrates into the education strategy

• consider the path to A levels for those who are not selected for Hautlieu at 14

• consider whether the funding that has been allocated to schools is sufficient to drive the outcomes desired; and

• consider how schools can achieve more autonomy, in areas such as the letting of contracts, the ability to set fees and the holding of reserves.

R3  Enhance the delivery plan for the digital strategy to include resourcing and key

performance indicators.

R4 Update and refine the schools funding formula to include all schools.

R5 Develop an early intervention system for financial monitoring of school budgets to

ensure that corrective action is taken earlier to prevent the level of deficits currently in the system.

R6  Publish comprehensive attainment information including a commentary on the

context as a matter of routine.

R7 Ensure that the remaining projects and continuing outcomes from the Education

Reform Programme continue to be driven forward and, in doing so, capture and learn from the areas for improvement identified in this report on a systematic basis.

R8  Apply appropriate programme management disciplines including a focus on

tracking outcomes and benefits to future education reform programmes and the investment planned in early years.

R9  Ensure that future education reform programmes continue to track the anticipated

benefits and outcomes from the overall Education Reform Programme.

LYNN PAMMENT CBE Comptroller and Auditor General

Jersey Audit Office, De Carteret House, 7 Castle Street, St Helier, Jersey JE2 3BT T: +44 1534 716800 E: [email protected] W: www.jerseyauditoffice.je