School budgets - how would outcomes change if we went right back to basics?

[Emphasise]

Teachers cost money, good ones worth their weight in gold, most schools spend well over 80% of their budget on salaries.

But the other 20%, what really effect would it have on the children, especially in primary schools if (and these are all based on upcoming or ongoing costs in my school)

• smart boards aren't replaced - return to basic black/whiteboards
• ditto old children's Lap tops/pcs/ipads
• PE is playground games that don't need equipment or specialist coaches?
• Focus us on teaching Maths and English rather than art, science, cooking or other subjects that use materials
• They used scrap paper and pencils rather than individual whiteboards (when I started in school I couldn't believe how much was spent on whitebiard pens! 10 % of the curriculum budget in my small infant school this year)

-Remove LSAs

Anyway it's just occurred to me that in my 1970s primary school we didn't have any of these things. Was the education the children were getting so much worse?

I don't have an opinion on it, it's just a thought for discussion, as schools are going to have to change something.

So much for the government insisting on performance related pay, then, if nobody is get get paid any more year on year, regardless of whether they are brilliant, average or mediocre.

Still, if George Osborne can do six jobs, I'm sure a headteacher can run a school, teach a class, do school diy maintenance projects, edit a newspaper, be a non-executive director, and give rousing after dinner speeches all at the same time - so long as the added extras are unpaid. Unlike George Osborne.

Having come from business I agree with you admission.

Except - teachers rightly or wrongly, see their annual increment as a right. We do refuse it where a teacher is under performing but do it to the others and they'd be gone in a flash. Recruitment is expensive and usually (ime) means paying ups just to get someone through the door.

Same with head if she was asked to teach.

You can only increase letting rents as far as the market can take. Our facilities are OK but nothing special, if rent was increased they'd be empty.

State schools are not businesses.
They are an essential part of the infrastructure in a civilised country.

If you start looking at them like businesses you will fail your most vulnerable expensive pupils.

If the head was asked to teach without it impinging on her other duties and in a manner that made her feel valued rather than demeaned which this thread clarifies pretty well then she probably would.

Children in the 1970s who couldn't cope without extra support would have been excluded and/or sent to a special school.

Special schools are expensive and there aren't enough places for those children who are in desperate need. Getting rid of LSAs would be a false economy. It's cheaper to hire someone to give extra support to children who struggle than to pay for those same children to take an expensive placement in a special school.

And we certainly did have art, science, cooking, and PE equipment when I was in primary school in the 1970s.

The other thing to do with immediate effect is instigate a total ban on any salary increases. No more moving up the pay scale automatically, no more getting 1% increase every year for cost of living.

Wow, we are truly fucked if that's the attitude. So much relies on staff goodwill already, don't assume that cutting the pay of staff will result in savings when they decide to quit as a fuck you (recruitment is expensive) or withdraw all their current goodwill such as buying equipment for their classroom, putting on trips with the associated unpaid overtime and so on.

Only do this if you want to cull staff. Even then you may end up culling staff you can't afford to lose.

noblegiraffe,
not going to argue with you about what might happen but when 50% + of academies are now in a debt situation and I know that in some LAs the level is higher for maintained schools there is a point where one has a choice, live within the budget or in effect wait for the authorities to remove the GB and put in people who will insist on the school balancing budget to income.
GBs are not doing their job if they are setting deficit budgets.

Oh if only there were something that lone heads could do. Like band together with other heads and put pressure on the government in some way...?

No, sure, the only option is to roll over and let the school die.

There is evidence that the use of TAs in school does not enhance learning....but there are situations where they are vital: small schools with mixed age classes. Our local primary has one class with 3 years represented.

Using your lists as an example

- smart boards aren't replaced - return to basic black/whiteboards

Difficult to see, very relient on consumables to be able to write.

- ditto old children's Lap tops/pcs/ipads

Just had a thread complaining that IT (ppt, word etc.) wasn't being taught and we are just of the back of IT professionals saying that programming wasn't being taught.

- PE is playground games that don't need equipment or specialist coaches?

I don't knowmany schools (except private) that have specialist coaches.

- Focus us on teaching Maths and English rather than art, science, cooking or other subjects that use materials

So you sacrifice any child that isn't proficient in an academic subject?

- They used scrap paper and pencils rather than individual whiteboards (when I started in school I couldn't believe how much was spent on whitebiard pens! 10 % of the curriculum budget in my small infant school this year)

You have to generate the scrap paper first, you suggested standard whiteboards as a solution in your list.

-Remove LSAs

So again sacrifice those that need the help, or do we re open the "special" schools?

admission

The other thing to do with immediate effect is instigate a total ban on any salary increases. No more moving up the pay scale automatically, no more getting 1% increase every year for cost of living.

Teachers earn their pay increase, there hasn't been automatic progression for years. and if you remove the paltry 1% cost of living pay rise how are you going to keep teachers?

admission - so in other words, GBs should do what they know is harmful to children's education and thus the country so as to stay within budget, because if they don't, someone else will. Tbh, the funding situation has got to the point where you would have to be a pretty crappy governing body to roll over and do that, as sticking to budgets that are too small to provide a genuinely good education in the next few years is harming the entire country.

All this and the last government appears to have achieved is: ensuring crappy, insecure, low paid employment for a huge swathe of people; growing wealth for a minuscule minority who would rather be surrounded by shit and chaos than share any of it via tax payments to help fund the proper running of essential public services; the messing up of health, welfare and education big time; and failing to work out how to create a fair tax system. Is it time to admit that this country is a basket case?

OK, so all of those who are being so aggressive at every suggestion (I know, none of the are good and everyone in schools is doing everything they can to avoid it) what would you do to balance the budget?

10 years ago the school I work in had a head and a deputy out of class (the previous deputy had been teaching a class). Now we have a head and 4 assistant/deputy heads out of class. They don't cover, only occasionally work with small groups. We are a primary school. Most members of staff can see an easy way to make sure we don't run a deficit budget. In reality I suspect me and my fellow Tas will go long before any of them go back into class.

Where on earth do you live, bandere? Clearly not in one of the traditionally underfunded areas, where the set up in your school would never have been possible.

What a civil servant has already suggested is that parents be asked to contribute towards the costs, which is what some schools are already doing. This sort of money used to be for extras, now it's for essentials and if parents cannot afford it, then the children in your school all miss out and standards go down. TAs/LSAs, pastoral support, etc, tend go before teachers do. In primary schools, any extras like specialist language teachers or specialist music provision, or forest schools are scrapped, because children are not tested on any of that. Then class sizes start to go up. Then computers stop working, things that break are not replaced and everyone panics if anything unexpected happens. Children that are expensive to cater for are catered for less well and this has a knock on effect on all children, as classes are more frequently disrupted by unhappy children, etc, etc.

Underfunding is underfunding - you only balance the budget by providing something of lower quality.

Interesting article on the subject:

www.theguardian.com/education/2017/mar/21/schools-core-subjects-parents-pay-sport-music

School govenor for a very small school which will lose the equivalent of a full time teacher when the cuts bite. I think we will see parents being asked to contribute more (as is the case in pretty much every other European country) - you'll be given a shopping list of supplies to buy such as those wee whiteboards and pens etc. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask parents to shell out £10-£15 for things like that, and pupil premium money can be used to pay for those who can't afford it.

It's not £10-£15 parents are being asked to shell out.

A few thousand a year from the wealthier parents is more in line with what is needed to cover costs for all - especially if all parental contributions remain voluntary. And if compulsory, how expensive would that be to enforce?

Are we to go to a system of poor schools? If you don't pay extra, your child is expelled and sent to a school which only teaches you how to read, write and add up?

Roundaboutown- I'm in a 4 form entry school in London, so we have been well funded.
Other local schools have started asking for termly contributions to help with running costs. Our school is an affluent area and I'm sure many parents could easily afford to support the school. This makes me worry for the less affluent areas around us.

I'd say that the staffing bill could be significantly reduced, and the quality of candidates improved, if the job was made more manageable.

In the past, a teacher had much more freedom over what was taught. Creative people teach differently from logical people, physical people etc. If the head and governors employ a range of people then all areas are covered well over time. Each year, children got a different member of staff teaching at their peak in a way which made them confident.

Now, all members of staff are having to be excellent at all areas, including admin, which makes them really stressed and overwhelmed.

It's more cost effective to get the best out of your staff than to count out the print sticks.

It's the final day of the government consultation on school cuts tomorrow.

I posted a link earlier.... (sorry if this has been mentioned already haven't read the whole way through this thread)

Hopefully the link is below - please let them know what you think:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/education/2883380-School-funding-cuts-consultation-deadline-tomorrow