School sounding cuts

[mrz]

Will your child's school face cuts to budget?http://www.schoolcuts.org.uk/#/

So, average primary head was on £52,000 while a secondary head earned £73,000.

Less than MPs then.

"Everybody has to realise that times are changing and expecting pay rises and school funding "

It isn't about pay rises but it's very short sighted not to adequately fund education. (Insert health, social care etc )

Suppermummy Cut the failures fund the successes, like evolution in the long run its far more efficient and successful.

The problem is that they aren't funding the successes very well either. Look at how many existing grammar schools are struggling financially. I really can't see the point in pouring huge funds into creating yet more struggling schools.

Suppermummy From what I read a few failed free schools versus the many successful is a lot more cash efficient than burning money on failing state schools.

I'm guessing your not reading about schools like this then:

www.bristolpost.co.uk/two-bristol-academy-schools-at-risk-of-closure-after-potential-1million-shortfall-revealed/story-29741736-detail/story.html#IfmvQivjVoihdRPy.99

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-36059761

www.theguardian.com/education/2016/nov/05/academy-boss-on-temporary-leave-ian-cleland

My experience is that head teachers earn double what an MP does

The head of my school earns about £58k.

FYI our country is in debt. Who is supposed to pay it back?

How about increasing taxation, since we have the lowest taxation rates in Europe (particularly for the "rich")?

And how about people learn to understand the difference between personal debt and budgetary deficit for a country.

This government conceded post Brexit that austerity was not necessary. It is a political choice to cut public sector spending in most areas while wasting money on free schools and other pet schemes, and reducing corporation tax etc.

Good point on grammars, mumtryingherbest. I looked at the original link, and the super -selectives in my area (all top 20 nationally, KS4 and KS5, usually top 10) all are down for cuts of 9%-19%.
I know one of the schools has already begun asking parents for a larger contribution to school funds (£30 p.a. up from £10 p.a.) and it seems to have invoked outrage (bearing in mind 50% of their intake come from private preps!!). I think it demonstrates forward thinking, particularly when a) it's a voluntary contribution, the request is not chased up, b) a large number of parents are rubbing their hands with glee at the fact they don't have to continue paying £12k+ a year for a good education.
Most of the objections seemed to centre around staff being paid too much, how they should be thankful they teach in grammars with quiet, focused, easy to teach pupils (!!), and that the Heads were obviously overpaid. (These comments from mainly medical consultants, GPs and solicitors).
If these people do not value the work teachers do, what chance the rest of the population that can only dream of a salary greater than £25k?

It isn't about pay rises but it's very short sighted not to adequately fund education. (Insert health, social care etc )
Everyone can agree with that, its motherhood and apple pie, but where does the money come from when every sector needs more support and the country is in massive debt? Easy answer is to raise taxes but surprise surprise the majority always choose to NOT vote for tax rises. So we have to live within our means whether or not its short sighted.

MumTryingHerBest - Those are exactly the sort of schools I am talking about. Financially unsustainable academies/free schools being swiftly dealt with, either shut down or taken over by someone who can run them properly. Had they been council run then they could have been left to fail for years, at great cost, with nothing substantial being done to sort them out, they used to be called 'sink schools'.

Suppermummy MumTryingHerBest - Those are exactly the sort of schools I am talking about. Financially unsustainable

It would appeare that even the best performing schools are becoming financially unsustainable. What's more parents are being asked to put their hands in their pockets to prop them up. Take this school for example:

www.schoolreviewer.co.uk/resources/top-grammar-school-faces-financial-crisis/

MumTryingHerBest, Latymer school has been asking for parental donations for decades so hard to say just how financially unsustainable they are. Looking at their website you would think they are flush, having just refurbished 12 science labs and upgraded 6 technology rooms.

I think its very fair to ask schools like that to make some choices, do they really need a full time librarian or do they really need to offer so many different subjects at GCSE when so many other schools cant afford it. I think its fair to say that parents pay a bit more for all the extras an elite school like Latymer offers.

I think its fair to say that parents pay a bit more for all the extras an elite school like Latymer offers.

Do we really want to encourage a system of top-up financial contributions by parents? So that wealthy catchment/super-selective schools will have enough resources but less wealthy catchment schools won't? Latymer might well currently be using the money for "extras" but do we want parental contributions to become the new norm?

It is a false economy to freeze teacher pay/cut budgets when this contributes to an already critical shortage of teachers. Training new teachers is expensive. Recruiting new teachers is expensive. Even schools advertising job vacancies costs thousands and more and more money is being spent on supply teachers.

Treating schools/teachers like shit is more expensive in the long run because every day for each child there needs to be a classroom, some work and an adult, and each year there needs to be another qualified cohort entering the workforce.

Do we really want to encourage a system of top-up financial contributions by parents? No, but that is separate from saying the tax payer should fund all these extras for an elite school like Latymer, when other schools can't afford them.

I agree its probably a false economy to freeze teachers pay (or any sectors pay) if that contributes to a shortage. But where does the money come from when the public refuse to vote for tax rises to pay for it? Until everyone agrees to raises taxes then we have to live within our means (that is NOT treating teachers teachers like shit).

Suppermummy02 Looking at their website you would think they are flush I think their accounts are likely to give a better picture of their financial status rather than their “shop window” web site (I’m guessing you’re not a financial advisor).

refurbished 12 science labs and upgraded 6 technology rooms I’m not really understanding why it would be unreasonable for a school to carry out maintenance and upgrades as and when necessary.

I’m seriously confused by your logic: We can’t afford to increase funding for existing schools because the Country is in too much debt. Existing high performing schools should accept this and not undergo refurbishment or upgrades and cut exam options. However, it is quite right that we should gamble huge amounts of money on new schools (a fair portion of which will go on set up costs) which have little in the way of a proven business model and a number of which are already demonstrating the predicted failings. Apparently these new schools are a better option because they can change hands or be closed down quickly (requiring further set up costs for the new schools that will be needed to replace them if they close).

Suppermummy02 elite school like Latymer You are aware that there is a proposal for £50mil to be used to set up new Grammar/selective schools (or has that idea been completely binned now)? Oddly that same £50mil could not be found prior to the proposal to improve school funding.

Suppermummy02

Looking at their website you would think they are flush, having just refurbished 12 science labs and upgraded 6 technology rooms.

You are assuming that this comes from the main school budget and not from external grants, sponsorship and lettings.

I am not trying to argue the education budget doesn't need an increase, I am just saying I don't think Latymer is a good example of a school on the edge of financial collapse. (of course I could be wrong)

Their accounts 'might' show a deficit but that does not mean the head couldn't make changes that other schools have had to, to fit their budget. And from their website it doesn't look like the buildings are crumbling or that they are short of money for anything, eg I don't know a single school in my area that can afford a full time librarian, most dont even have a library.

I don't see why it matters where the money comes from to pay for their facilities because most schools dont have the facilities Latymer has to be able to earn money from lettings, sponsorship, external grants etc.

there is a proposal for £50mil to be used to set up new Grammar/selective schools My local local council would possibly be able to build 2 schools for that money. If the £50 million creates more than 2 good schools then it will have been money well spent. Just saying.

Suppermummy02 f the £50 million creates more than 2 good schools then it will have been money well spent. Just saying.

If it was used to increase funding for a larger number of existing good schools, then it would be money well spent. Particularly as the majority would not simply go on set up costs.

Why would be be better to give £50 million to already existing good schools, than to schools we are trying to make/create as good? I am told we need more schools due to population increase so isn't it better to fund them?

But all pupils need new schools, why should the 50 million be used to build new schools that will exclude the majority of children in the area they are supposed to serve? That's just bonkers.

www.theguardian.com/education/2015/feb/16/state-schools-balance-budgets-parliament-funding-teaching?0p19G=c

The government announced that they protected school incomes, which is true, but they didn't protect their costs

What has happened is that they have put up national insurance. Around 80% of a school's budget is on staffing so, any cost increase like this has a massive impact. In the school I work in, many posts have been.

why should the 50 million be used to build new schools that will exclude the majority of children in the area they are supposed to serve

I dont know a lot about the grammar debate but I suspect its to serve the clever poor children who cant afford a house in the elite 'comprehensive' catchment. They deserve a chance to make something of themselves in relation to their intellect, rather than just giving it all to rich kids.

Clever poor kids mostly don't get into grammars.

And if you're planning on building a 'good' school in a poor area, shouldn't all the poor kids have access to it?

Like if you had an area that desperately needed a new school and the government said it was building a 100% catholic school there. I'm sure the non-Catholics would be more than a little pissed off that they will still have to bus out to the next town.

Why would non Catholics want to go to a catholic school?

Likewise why do non academic children want to go to an academic grammar that is completely unsuited to them?

I want all children to go to a good school that is best for their needs, if that means getting a bus then that is a price worth paying. I can walk to my local Aldi but if I want Tesco I have to get a bus, its the same thing. Some people live beside a Tesco and have to get a bus to Aldi, we are lucky to have the choice.

Why would non-Catholics be happy to continue to have to bus out of the area while Catholics (who are in a minority in the area) get to have a good school on their doorstep? How would that be fair?

If there is a good school to be built in an area of need, then it should be accessible to all. Specifically catering to a minority while neglecting the majority is totally unreasonable.

You can only have so many schools in an area, if you have to get a bus to a Muslim school because the local one is Catholic (or vice versa) then that's sensible and fair.

Children are not all the same, not everyone want to go to a homogeneous 'catch all' school. Lots of schools catering for lots of minorities, and some schools catering for all, means everyone is catered for.