Should schools discuss budget cuts with parents?

Eh? It is political, of course it is. Government deciding on funding and cuts. The blame lays on the government, not the staff.

Soci, and this is why the profession dont do themselves any favours. The same with NHS staff, its the desire to politicise and blackmail the wider population. Staff deciding who deserves their service. Vote with me or you wont receive a service. Has no one twigged yet that these two most powerful areas of public servants, are the most powerful simply because the 'customers' are the most vulnerable?

www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/mp-bob-stewart-reveals-teacher-told-pupils-not-talk-to-his-son-because-his-father-s-a-tory-a3635326.html

Well, this is what majority have voted for in the past couple of elections. More austerity, more cuts, less investment. So it's all great. Those who are struggling are doing so because of bad budgeting, London and immigrants.... Or so I'm being told by my fellow concerned citizens.

Why, as previously posted, should London children be receiving more funding than children elsewhere?

So why not level up? Oh, I know, "we can't afford it, austerity". What, we can't afford to invest in our children?

'Twas sarcasm Ceto.

Clearly not very good sarcasm ....

Hang on, Spinflight, how come in one post London is nothing but neglect, deprivation, poverty and woe whilst in another London children are all little Tarquins?

On another thread Spinflight is exposed as a troll. I don't live in London.

See my post on Londoners readily defending the indefensible.

When I walk through inner city Birmingham I see nothing but wealth, opportunity, infrastructure projects and expensive cars.

London on the other hand is nothing but neglect, deprivation, poverty and woe.

Birmingham is clearly the government's top priority, everything else a distant second place.

Over privileged children in London? I don't think I have ever read so much tosh! You really do not understand London and your are obviously reading too much socialist trash.

London schools have historically had higher funding. However PP is paid to schools in all parts of the country, not just London. This has balanced funding to an extent. The new formula has winners and losers and some local authorities have funding not far below London. These were historically areas of high deprivation and money was specifically targeted to improving schools in these areas. The leafy lane authorities have tended to have less money and grants and they have not been able to bid for ring fenced funding because they do not qualify. There is a big difference between funding of schools outside London. It is not a London vs everyone else issue.

And so there should be..

Cuts to the London funding and increases to the funding elsewhere.

This isn't cuts overall, it's redistribution of wealth from the over privileged to the rest.

Yes they should be aware of the consequence of any cuts. This shouldn't be campaigned on differences between locations but on the actual affect on the individual school. Don't get distracted from the fact that there are bug real cuts coming

This doesn't sound like equality under the law to me. Or equality of opportunity, outcome etc.

There may be good reasons why London schools receive such a large amount of funding in comparison to the rest of the country, though that doesn't explain the colonial attitude.

Frankly if London children received £10,000 per head there are many who would try to justify it.

Do you think, for instance, that the highly popular and praised third baronet of wherever would have supported increased educational outlays in his Cheshire constituency or his beloved London whilst Chancellor of the exchequer?

from what I understand the extra funding for London has to do with the number of children who had English as a second language and so in 2003 added funding was initiated.
however the area has a higher number of students that then go on to score better on tests.
I gather they are not sure why this is, speculating that the children who have esl have parents who are more vested in education.

I'll happily wear that one. London to me is a strange place which I rarely enjoy visiting.

Why, as previously posted, should London children be receiving more funding than children elsewhere? The sense of entitlement which partly puts me off London seems to have few bounds.

Good grief, Spinfight, I challenge you to go and have an in-depth visit to places like Haringey and tell me whether you seriously believe the children there are Tarquins.

Really? So those in Grenfell Tower were not needy in any way? You are very wrong! There are thousands of needy children in London! Do you ever go to London? You clearly have no idea! Or knowledge!

Compared to the rest of the country these needy by London standards children are indeed Tarquins.

As for the privately educated ones that is a different debate.

Do you think Tarquin is at a state school? That's one of the reasons why London has been highly funded. There are lots of needy children in the schools not the Tarquins of this world.

So Tarquin and Chelsea's children are worthy of a better education than the rest of the country eh?

Hardly a surprise but genuinely shocked at the disparity in the figures.

It is not wasted money in London but schools there are clearly more generously funded. If you have a Library open for 11 hours a day, for example, this is beneficial but expensive. Few schools can have this level of support so the ones that do will have it chipped away by polication of the new formula.

Governors are there to manage budgets but it is a foolish GB that does not consult with parents if it is changing the school day (it has to) and is making other significant changes that impinge on parents and children. Leadership is vital in such circumstances.

Carolinesbeanies, do feel free to go into a few London schools and advise on precisely where they're wasting money. We all appreciate that, despite the close involvement of independent governing bodies and auditors, you know better.

OdinsLoveChild
Good behaviour in school would be paramount for me.

And the reason for yes is because schools are set up to have some accountability to parents e.g. governing bodies. Thus us changing with some academies.

Yes.
And this is not London bashing - there has been more improvement in education outcomes in London than any other area. Some of their increased funding is rightly for cost of living.
East Anglia has some of the worst funding and some of the worst educational outcomes....

Clavinova the school do have behaviour problems. Its well known in the community and several students over the last 2 or 3 years have appeared in court and had their stories printed (not named due to their age) in the press however the financial situation wasn't well known.

Using the school cuts map it showed only a small reduction in the budget, 1 teacher equivalent it suggested, but it appears that cutting 2 teachers is the minimum they need to do. Parents are being asked to provide text books from September which they haven't had to do before, trips have been cancelled, there are none planned for the foreseeable future. They school has increased its intake this year by adding another 2 forms but cut the number of staff.

I would suggest that the behaviour issues were the lesser of 2 evils when explaining it to the parents. What sounds better to you ? The school are trying to reduce 'known' problems by shortening the school day or that the schools budget has to be cut far more than expected despite what we said at the last open evening and despite our best efforts at not wasting money on professional artists to paint inspirational murals on the walls but we just cant make the numbers add up even though we have a Professor of Maths as department head

The head is very good at reassuring people then doing the complete opposite. The school said finances were fine and that they could do ok despite the expected cuts. They felt this was helpful to parents to know the schools is doing ok. The reality is money isn't ok, theyre struggling like a lot of other schools but parents aren't stupid they do see when things start to fall apart and had the school kept parents more up to date some parents may not be removing their children at the rate they are doing. My understanding from a Governor is that 1 year group has lost 40 children since Easter, most citing the fact that they have no idea how the school will be performing in 12 -18 months time and they're not prepared to risk it with their children. They all want reassurance that the school will still be standing and not bankrupt. The school just ignore their concerns.