£240 million allocated to new grammar schools in the Autumn Statement(89 Posts)
I just want this thread here to reference whenever any poster says 'there's no money, schools will just have to reduce photocopying costs/sell the playing field/charge parents £500 per year/not give teachers a pay rise and schools/teachers/parents will just have to accept it'
Money can be found when it suits the whim of the PM.
I thought the consultation didn't close for a while yet, does that mean the consultation is a sham?
Disgusting - but par for the course.
the VAT raid on small businesses is pretty shitty too
£240 million is change down the back of the sofa for government.
It has to be our priority to educate our brightest children to their maximum potential.
Suppermummy is that to be to the detriment of our average children and our weaker children? Because that is what grammar systems do.
£240 million to help kids do well at existing schools would be great
grammar schools do not get better results for even the brightest kids - as per the per reviewed published research
Some grammar schools do. We vary. Just like other schools. The ones I have worked in have also done well on value added scores.
That said, this is a stupid vanity project at a time when existing schools are struggling for funds.
The government is desperately trying a distraction technique! The GCSE reforms are a mess, everyone's confused about AS levels, there is a teacher recruitment and retention crisis and school buildings are in urgent need of repair or rebuilding. I'm sorry, but spending a bit of money to open some grammar schools is not going to fix these problems. And grammar schools are state schools and they have these problems as well - Southend, for example, has several existing grammar schools and was on the news a while back because even these schools have trouble recruiting teachers in a coastal town when teacher can commute to London and earn more.
The table that this is pulled from is about uncertainty in policy costings. In preparing the Autumn Statement the OBR and the government put together draft estimates of the cost or gain from every measure the government is considering. Inclusion of this measure in the Autumn Statement does NOT mean that the government has taken a decision to implement this policy. This section of the Autumn Statement often includes costings for policies that are never actually implemented.
Total government spending on primary and secondary education is £63 billion, so £60 million per annum represents less than 0.1% of spending. To put it another way, if this money was sent to schools it would result in schools receiving an increase in funding of around £7.50 per pupil per annum. This would work out at around £7,000 per annum for a secondary school of average size. Note that the average secondary school receives around £4.2M funding. It would be a drop in the ocean and would make no difference to the need for schools to manage their costs carefully.
However the BBC is confirming that £50m has been set aside for the grammar idea
But nothing extra for all the other schools facing NIC funding squeezes.
If that's for new/expanding schools then it doesn't matter whether it's grammar or comp - in most areas, population is rising so more schools/places are needed. It's the same money for more/bigger schools whatever they are. Grammars aren't more expensive to build and get the same grants/funding. So, if it's, say for an extra school in a growing city with several schools already, a new school being a grammar rather than another comp isn't a problem (cash wise) as it would cost the same as another comp.
However, IF, it's to build/grow grammars where new school places aren't needed (yes there are a few areas where population isn't growing) then it is indeed not appropriate.
Schools expansion at secondary level is needed, full stop.
The demographic bulge that has led to a frantic scramble to create new primary school places us about to hit secondaries.
The more that can go into secondary expansion now, the better.
How much was spent on primary expansion? Because if they're already trying to find a similar amount so secondaries are ready, this will be a rare (and welcome) example of adequate planning. Assuming of course there is also an adequate uplift in other types of school.
"school buildings are in urgent need of repair or rebuilding"
Already? I always wondered about the VFM of the huge rebuilding programme in the 00s, but if there is already a widespread crisis again, it suggests that was money straight down the drain.
*"school buildings are in urgent need of repair or rebuilding"
Already? I always wondered about the VFM of the huge rebuilding programme in the 00s, but if there is already a widespread crisis again, it suggests that was money straight down the drain.*
Whilst many schools benefited from new buildings or renovations, plenty of schools didn't because they didn't qualify for the money which seemed to be aimed at the arts, sport, science and foreign languages etc.
Our son's school is very run down. Schools close by benefited enormously with new science blocks, new sports halls, new drama facilities etc - it seems that "some" activities had money thrown at them whilst others weren't eligible. Our son's school already had a sports hall, newish science block and decent music/drama facilities, all of which seem to have been built in the 1980s/90s, and the foreign language block was built in the 00s, so were basically up to standard. The rest of the school is dire, being the geography/history/RE block and the Maths/English block which are close to being uninhabitable, but it seemed that there was no govt money nor grants for the core subjects like those so those classrooms continue to deteriorate.
Another school nearby really "played the game" with grants and have heavily developed their site by learning which boxes to tick - basically looking at the available grants and developing their site backwards from the grants available rather than working forwards with their actual needs. They've now got a bright huge building network, with a couple of huge sports halls, all weather sports pitches, a fully kitted out theatre, brand new sixth form centre, etc. All looks wonderful until you look at the results and the conduct of the pupils - both of which are well under par.
Shame that so much money was thrown at some schools and pretty much nothing to others, all apparently determined by what the government of the day wanted to spend their money on, i.e. arts, sports and languages. Schools that played the game did very well out of it!!!
When the coalition came to power, funding on a programme of repairing, and in some cases rebuilding existing LEA schools, was scrapped immediately - those schools that had already had their building work funded were lucky and others were very unfortunate and missed out. That's leaving aside the ongoing maintenance and emergency repairs that all public buildings need.
My school was due some Building Schools for the Future funding for a new building that was scrapped when the coalition was elected. Our buildings are totally worn out.
the VAT raid on small businesses is pretty shitty too
I guess you are talking about the changes to the Flat Rate Scheme designed to make it harder for businesses to misuse the scheme in order to underpay VAT as highlighted by the Guardian recently. Long overdue and not at all shitty.
Most small businesses won't be affected. Those that are affected will be businesses that spend very little on goods. These businesses are generally paying significantly less VAT than they should.
The flat rate scheme benefits the government though surely if a company who doesn't purchase a lot pays it?
You can't use it once your turnover is over a certain amount anyway.
No. It benefits the company in that situation.
Imagine you are an IT software consultant. You work for a client for a couple of weeks and bill them £5,000 plus £1,000 VAT. Your total spending in that period is £20 on office supplies on which you have paid £4 VAT. Under the normal VAT rules you would pay £996 to HMRC - the VAT you have charged your client less the VAT you have paid. Under the Flat Rate Scheme you will actually pay £870 to HMRC, giving you an additional £126 profit. Following the changes you will pay £990 to HMRC, reducing your additional profit in this scenario to £6.
That said, this is a stupid vanity project at a time when existing schools are struggling for funds
Spot on. Ed Dorrell (TES editor so should know) claims that existing grammar Heads hardly have a good word to say about the Green Paper.
The fact that the proposed VAT changes to the scheme disbar spending on services - such as design or graphics or legal or accounting - is morally wrong.
I have two totally legit businesses who will be hit quite hard by the arbitrary nature of the change.
It is so sad that Philip Hammond had no bravery at all in this Autumn Statement
I'm struggling to understand what you are getting at here. Are you, perhaps, referring to paragraph 15.2 of VAT Notice 733 which says that you cannot reclaim VAT on capital expenditure on services? That has not changed from the 2013 version. And since such spending is taken into account in calculating the flat rate I struggle to see how it is morally wrong.
If you are referring to some other provision please explain.
It is, of course, possible for any business that is disadvantaged by the changes to the Flat Rate Scheme to leave it at any time.
Well, if schools start implementing four day weeks and slashing staff numbers, £240 million on grammar schools is going to look as fucking inane as it actually is. Pissing in the wind won't fix chronic underfunding.
diverting the thread, but why is expenditure on motor expenses no longer allowable under flat rate VAT ? or travel and subsistence ? or any sort of capex ?
Yup, the 4 day week in Sussex looms nearer
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.