to be alarmed at school budget cuts

[clayspaniel]

Apparently some schools are going to be badly hit by the new fair funding formula - inner city areas hit hardest. If you put in your postcode it tells you what sort of cuts your school could face, and how this could equate to teachers and TAs jobs. Not encouraging!

(( www.schoolcuts.org.uk/#/ ))

only 8% of schools gaining isn't OK! Or have I misunderstood? 100% should be gaining.

That was never going to happen with a Tory govt. they have no interest in investing in state schools especially as most of them don't use them and if they do then they use the very well funded top London schools.

On top of this we have just been told that the new apprenticeship levy also applies to maintained schools - as they are part of a county wide payroll. So the county will be taking a further 0.5% off our funding (payroll is more than 80% of costs already) - even if the County fulfil their apprentice requirements then we won't see those funds again.

handbag the current formula is
Not just worked out on Eal and SN it is based on some outdated historic method and then increments are (rightly) added for EAL and SN. The basic amount allocated per pupil (not including SN, PP and EAL etc is much lower in some areas). When we lived in a top 10 funded area all of the classes Had a teacher and a TA.

One or some of you dc then. Still I cannot understand how anyone would support such a hostile budget cut. It is to the detriment of the whole of society, not 'just' the 92% affected schools, teachers, parents, school children and communities.

I haven't been greatly interested in politics until a couple of years and am guilty of having voted for Tories in the past NEVER AGAIN. The infuriating thing is that Corbyn won't budge and with him the Labour party is unelectable. Where does that leave us? Our country is going to the pits, Brexit, School budget cuts, reduce freedom of movement, diminishing education. Bloody frighting future.

and of course the death of the NHS which will only be survived by it's lovely reassuring brand .

No matter how far I boom out all I could see are very dark minuses. In quite a poor area in a school district with a good percentage less school places than needed that is quite depressing.

I love that comment a pp made "school just have to get on with it and be creative with a smaller budget"

creative? How do you purchase books and IT equipment 'creatively'? How do you fix real estate, how do you pay teachers? Maybe teachers could get additional fruit and veg instead of cash from the gardening clubs?

Actually HF I have never said that I agree with a budget cut. What I have repeatedly said is that I support a system which distributes funds more equally and not based on some archaic calculation method which penalised by postcode.

Local secondary, deprived urban area, but outstanding and improved results year on year, will lose well over half a million. They're already at a disadvantage compared to kids in a leafy suburb. Less for EAL & SEN support etc benefits whom?

As someone said up thread it's not redistribution, it's plain old budget cuts. We'll be back to my school days in the nineties when it was three or four kids huddled round one book, buckets to collect the rain dripping in, and Windows left cracked for years.

six a county near me is one of the worst funded and I've looked at some schools and they are losing more money than my school which is in a better funded area. I know about the difference between the worst funded and better funded schools and this website seems to suggest that this isn't going to be fixed, but that pretty much everyone will be losers.

How funding is allocated atm

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/536948/Proforma_publication_16-17_analysis_note_vFinal.pdf

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/536951/LA_proforma_data_1617_vFINAL.xlsx

It's up to LAs apparently, so maybe you need to get back onto your MP six

Local secondary, deprived urban area, but outstanding and improved results year on year, will lose well over half a million. They're already at a disadvantage compared to kids in a leafy suburb

How is the school disadvantaged? The school has the same job to do, regardless of parents' incomes. Up to now it's probably been advantaged, by having a lot more money per capita than the school in the leafy suburb.

Funding cuts are bad. A fairer redistribution of where the money goes is not.

Zoom not boom lol

I live in North Oxfordshire and my MP has been supporting the fairer funding campaign, arguing that our local schools are poorly funded under the current model compared with schools in big cities.

It now appears that all of our local schools will receive significant cuts under the new system. It's clear, as pointed out above, that this exercise is about pure cuts, not redistribution of funding. Our local hospital provision, incidentally, is also being decimated, with maternity, and probably A&E, shutting and locals being sent to Oxford, an hour away. As far as I can see, it's about asset stripping and handing over of services and resources to the likes of Toby Young and Richard Branson. That the free schools programme - with money thrown at dubious providers to open schools in areas that don't even need them - continues is a national disgrace. Sadly, I think the cuts are going to get worse as Brexit is going to cost billions to administer (30,000 new civil servants needed for one thing, according to a leaked memo today - at least some job opportunities for all those sacked teachers . . .). It will provide our government with the opportunity to finish off public services and welfare for good.

TBF libdem, labour or conservative mean very little. Majority are privately educated and will privately educate their children and have little interest in doing anything but lining their own pockets.

How is the school disadvantaged? The school has the same job to do, regardless of parents' incomes. Up to now it's probably been advantaged, by having a lot more money per capita than the school in the leafy suburb.

Seriously? You can't understand why children from a deprived background might do less well than their peers from a more privileged background? Or why additional funds might be required to attempt to level the playing field a tiny bit?

It is not redistribution.

Six "I support a system which distributes funds more equally", ok not the proposed scheme then. Yeah, I would love for a government to invest in education so that all schools and pupils can thrive. Unfortunately the proposed cuts are not about fair re-distribution but about making it impossible for schools to operate effectively Seeing that the majority of schools in deprived areas are ging to loose funding as per the above linked website it will the poorest who will miss out not schools like in my naive MC area where parents will just have to work harder to raise money for equipment.

all other reports I have read about this issue state that 8% of schools are set to gain"

So why aren't they simply increasing the funding for that 8%?

This is a budget cut - and a particularly nasty one, too. Typical to target children yet again!

*aren't they simply increasing the funding for that 8%?^

Because the govt don't want to spend a penny more on education. They don't give a shit.

It's funny though- mn users get all het up about grammar schools creating inequality , yet for years not many people were bothered that their children's schools were receiving £2k per year per pupil more than others. Surely that is massive inequality?
I say it again, I don't agree with an overall cut to the education budget but I would like to see the available budget distributed more equally and not based on a postcode lottery.

Providing extra funding for the 8% would work out more cost effective and be politically more popular than the proposed idea. I repeat this is not about redistribution at all, it's about undermining the education system and creating and even more unfair society.

Is providing extra funding for EAL even working? Research repeatedly tells us that white working class boys are the ones achieving the least (along with black Caribbean boys who don't have EAL). So we grow lots of extra money at schools dealing with high numbers of children who have EAL and stats show that those children achieve very well and clearly it works for them but isn't at the detriment of funding being lower in schools that are predominantly white?
I am not white working class BTW, just curious as to whether the targeted funding is having an unfair impact on some children.
I do accept that children who come to school with no English need extra support and funds until they have a reasonable level of English though.

Just looking at the data from an organisation for flat rate funding 100 out of 150 LAs spend between £4100 and £4600 per pupil. Only 23 LAs spend more than £1000 more than the lowest funded LA and nearly all of those that do are in London. If you compare City of London to Wokingham then there is a massive difference but generally LA spends aren't that dramatically different.

www.fairpupilfunding.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/f40briefing.pdf

According to the cuts website Manchester will lose 53 million and West Sussex 19 million so it's a really strange way to make things 'equitable'.

Apparently over 100 MPs signed in support of distributing funds differently to reduce the difference between the best and worst funded.
anncoffeymp.com/press-release-over-100-mps-write-to-the-prime-minister-to-demand-fair-school-funding/

I'm quite sure that the vast majority of people supporting a different way of distributing the funds don't support overall budget cuts. I certainly don't support any cuts to the overall education budget. i agree that based on what the NUT are saying this does look like an overall budget cut but I am trying to remain open minded due to my feelings that the NUt are deliberately biased in their presenting of information.

The NUT have clearly stated where their data is from and how they've worked things out www.schoolcuts.org.uk/#/data

Schools should be funded better and no children should be having to go without the basics in any school anywhere in the country. However, it is right that children who have higher needs or come from deprived areas get more spent to help them access their education and get the best from it. I want the best for all children and that is not going to happen here is it?

Stupid mp. Had a look at Stockport and if she signed and agreed to the bill she just screwed over the people she represents.