Should schools discuss budget cuts with parents?

[Yvetteballs]

Some might say no because public servants can't be politically partisan. I'm inclined to say yes because with some schools facing 4 day weeks, for example, the situation is severe. Parents may prefer to raise money to support their school rather than have their children's education suffer.
What do you think?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

'Twas sarcasm Ceto.

Clearly not very good sarcasm ....

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?

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.

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

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