There is more money going into schools than there ever has been before

[noblegiraffe]

Video of Damian Hinds on the Andrew Marr show here:

twitter.com/marrshow/status/1000670165246267392?s=21

What is it about the DfE that means they start parroting this shit as soon as they sign up? There are more teachers than ever! It remains an attractive profession! Loads of money in schools!

Damian Hinds, sorry, I gave you a chance, but you’re a tosser.

MissSusanSays I doubt any school that has a high number of deprived families or located in less affluent areas will be able to ask for a monthly donation of £60.

£50 million for grammar schools to expand, ignoring all other schools. What a joke and a disgrace. However, I do hope the extra funds going to my DC's former grammar school will be used for some of the things that were missing and I don't mean the teachers that were got rid of, the classes that were enlarged and the subjects that were cancelled. My family are hoping that the current and future students will get loo doors, toilet paper, the leaky roof repaired, the rats in the canteen eradicated and the major subsidence issue dealt with. Really, it was like the 1800s. Don't miss it at all. Nor the letters asking parents for £50 per month.

MumTrying. St O's is a one-off and can't be compared to other schools on the income from parents. I have to warn you though that when I toured sixth forms a year ago they were all, some in less affluent areas, asking for anything from £50 per year to £50 per month. These schools are desperate. However, by paying we are exacerbating the problem with school funding, we are supporting the government's lousy education funding plan.

By financially contributing to a school it blurs the equality of education at that school. Would you tell the family who contributed £500 that year that their son will not be able to take a subject due to restricted places in the class? I doubt it.

Parents contribute £50 per month and the school can’t afford toilet paper?

My school doesn’t ask for parental contributions, isn’t in a well-funded area, we’ve lost TAs, teachers, subjects from the curriculum etc but we can at least afford bog roll.

St O's is a one-off and can't be compared to other schools on the income from parents.

I don't think St O's is a one-off:

www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/11plus/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=54301&p=667676&hilit=contributions#p667676

www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/11plus/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=47375&p=578956&hilit=contributions#p578956

To be clear, I don't think schools should be begging parents to help pay for the running costs of the school. However, I suspect that some schools have been benefiting from the "voluntary contributions" made by parents for a number of years now. I also suspect that a fair number of parents at those schools have been able to offer financial assistance when asked to do so.

Would you tell the family who contributed £500 that year that their son will not be able to take a subject due to restricted places in the class?

I wonder how many of the 163 Grammar schools will be in that situation once they have benefitted from the £200m funding that has been set aside for them.

Yes, bog roll. It was like preparing for a camping trip getting the school bags ready each morning; bog roll, handwash (no soap either). Shouldn't really complain though, one in two loos did have a door, the rest were open air! The subsidence caused sewage leaks so we really should have had welly boots too. Wow, I miss it!

MumTrying. Ok, so there may be a very small number awash with cash, but that surely is outweighed by the 99.9% of schools who are struggling. Whether parents can afford to contribute or not is not really the issue. In my opinion, no parent should be asked to contribute for state education, apart from voluntary PTA and "outside charity" fundraising. It is completely unfair that money has been set aside for grammar schools alone. But the government is smart. They need more votes so give the money to the areas of education where more people vote Tory. As Nick Clegg and David Laws both said in their memoirs, Cameron and Osborne were quite vocal about about not wanting to support projects which did not involve Tory voters (in that case, social housing). Education is an easy target for the government. Teachers don't like striking. The government will continue to do what it likes with our education system until we vote no.

I could name four primary schools, right now that are over £100,000 in deficit this year. And that is just my area.

I could also tell you the two large secondaries that are totally reliant on PTA funds for new equipment- pens, paper, sport, music etc.

We’re not making this up. What has really happened here is that a academisation is costly and schools switched based on promises of more straightforward and better funding, only to realise they had lost all of the free support provided by the LA.

If parents want a well equipped school then they need to pay directly or tell the government to sort it out.

But you are right that inner city schools in areas of high deprivation will feel the worst, eventually. It is actually the leafy middle class schools with low SEND and PP numbers that are already feeling the burn.

How can we tell a government to sort out school funding (and believe me, people are trying!) when the government’s Education Secretary goes on TV to say that school funding levels are at their highest ever, implying that concerns are overblown?

I could name four primary schools, right now that are over £100,000 in deficit this year. And that is just my area

And that is exactly what parents at St. Olave's were told (info from MumTryingHerBest's link):

Parents were told that this money was critical in keeping the school functioning following the budget cuts of recent years, and were also recently informed that the school would be running a deficit of £100,000 for the first time this year And yet the school had funds of £1.4m and £1m sitting in the bank.

I don't think running a deficit is necessarily a problem if you read this recent publication from NASUWT (National Association of Schoolmasters) - 'Where has all the money gone?'
www.nasuwt.org.uk/advice/leadership/budgets-funding.html

For those schools which are in deficit, this does not necessarily mean that the school is experiencing funding difficulties. Many schools experience short-term deficits because of increased pupil numbers which have led to greater expenditure to meet pupil needs. Funding for increased pupil numbers (known as ‘growth’ funding) is usually given to schools at least one year after the increase in pupil numbers has occurred

Inaccurate information about school funding, including fictitious school funding allocations, is circulating round the system, which is leading schools to believe that they must cut expenditure on teaching and learning when this is unnecessary

The EPI Report is highly misleading. The percentage of schools with deficit budgets rose by three per cent to ten per cent by March 2017, with a decrease in the average surplus by £11,000 to £131,000 for 90 per cent of schools. However, the EPI Report has drawn the conclusion that over 60 per cent of schools spent more than their income in 2016-17. No wonder the EPI has noted that the figures in their report differ from published statistics on school balances

noble that is part of the problem, isn’t it.

The government isn’t being honest.

And Clavinova. I know about those schools because I know the head teachers or former heads. These schools are not open about their financial difficulties. Most heads try not to raise panick amongst staff and parents.

As for St.Olaves- one swallow does not a summer make. Are we lying when we tell you that we work for schools or know of schools in financial trouble?

I think he is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

He's the SoS ffs! He has ultimate responsibility for his departmental budget and strategy. If he can't use the funds fairly, he's not up to the job. If he can't present a good enough case for adequate funding for his department, he's not up to the job.

It's schools that are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Not some ineffective numpty that doesn't have the first idea of how to deliver on his responsibilities.

MissSusanSays

Do you think that NASUWT (National Association of Schoolmasters) is lying then?

I think you are over simplifying based on one report Clavinova

I don’t think the NASUWT are lying. I think that their conclusions are a bit wrong. Every head I speak to has serious concerns about funding going forwards and this is NOT a new thing.

Why are schools spending more than their income? Is it wastefulness or is it because they don’t have enough to cover what is needed for staff, building maintences, supplies etc because of the system?

A figure like 60% suggests systemic issues in funding that leads to shortfalls.

Are you saying our education system is well funded. Because I don’t think you’ll find many staff or heads that agree with you. Your argument is based on semantics.

I’d also like to know how many of that 60% are stand alone academies that have to buy in HR, data and payroll services.

"the £50 million that has now been specifically earmarked for grammar expansion? Is that a ‘historical correction’ or politically motivated, do you think?"

It's a double announcement - it's how a proportion of the money within the (extant) secondary school expansion will be spent. They've not raked up new money for it.

A figure like 60% suggests systemic issues in funding that leads to shortfalls

NASUWT are saying that the 60% figure quoted in the EPI (Education Policy Institute) report is wrong - by a considerable margin!

Bravo. I see now what you did there. You’ve cherry picked out of two different sections of the report to try to create the idea that the NASUWT are saying the funding issue isn’t as bad as we think.

What the report actually says is that funding HAS fallen but there are still some schools with reserves (especially MATs) who are using the funding crisis to deny staff pay rises.

Good try though.

Why are schools spending more than their income? Is it wastefulness or is it because they don’t have enough to cover what is needed for staff, building maintenance, supplies etc. because of the system?

This is what NASUWT say:

The funding which schools receive often does not reach the front line. Despite the school funding squeeze since 2010, much education spending still does not reach the front line. Substantial levels of unspent reserves, inefficient and wasteful school level procurement, together with excessive levels of academy trustee and CEO leadership pay, are now hardwired into the school system. The NASUWT believes that there is need for urgent change in these areas, so that the available school and academy trust funding is used appropriately to support teachers to secure the best outcomes for all pupils.

Shall I 'cherry-pick' some more?!!

School spending issues are being exploited to justify the withholding of teachers’ pay, redundancies and the worsening of terms and conditions. Unfortunately, school funding issues are exploited to justify failing to use funding for teaching and learning purposes, including ensuring that teachers are appropriately paid and have working conditions which support their key role and manage their workload. Inaccurate information about school funding, including fictitious school funding allocations, is circulating round the system, which is leading schools to believe that they must cut expenditure on teaching and learning when this is unnecessary.

There are more children and teachers because of it then ever before .... considerably less money per child ... and teachers and teaching assistants haven't had meaningful raises in YEARS.

I hope we see some more grammar school places, then!

Why not just stop cherry picking and let people read the whole report themselves.

It’s one report.

And it pretty much supports what I was aging about issues in the academy system.

Schools Funding is falling. Even your report recognises that.

Education funding as a percentage of GDP is falling. Even Damian Hinds admitted budgets are tight. Pointing out the odd overpaid CEO (also the government’s fault for not capping pay, btw) isn’t going to put subjects back on the curriculum at my school, or restore TAs.

It’s one report.
NASWUT have published similar reports several years running - 'cherry-picked' again though:

The Government’s proposed new schools funding formula will create winners and losers. Even though the Government has not yet announced whether it will go ahead with its proposals, this is leading some governing bodies and academy trusts to justify pre-emptive action, reacting in a knee-jerk fashion and implementing cost-cutting exercises.

^Much school funding does not reach the frontline
Available data indicates that:
• in 2015-16 the total held in reserves across all local authority maintained schools was £2.1 billion;
• over 93% of schools were in surplus in March 2016 and out of these schools, the average surplus in each primary school increased by £8,000 to £116,000 and the average surplus in each secondary school increased by £13,000 to £391,000;
• in 2015, seven multi-academy trusts (MATs) had combined reserves of £111 million, with one MAT building up reserves of £17 million;
in 2014/15, 813 payments of over £100,000 were made by academy trusts to Trustees in 2014/15. The pay of many Chief Executives in academy trusts has also soared. In this context, the NASUWT does not believe redundancies can be justified.^