As we approach the government’s Comprehensive Spending Review, school funding is at the front of many people’s minds. The fact is: it doesn’t add up. Income is remaining flat while costs are rising, leading to what the Institute of Fiscal Studies has described as the first real-terms decline in education funding since the 1990s.
The cost pressures are coming from rising employment costs and from picking up the costs of spending cuts from other areas of the public sector – areas which nonetheless are essential to the running of schools, like speech therapy, mental health services and personnel support. As further welfare cuts begin to bite, these pressures on schools will grow further, with many already operating what we have described in the past as “miniature welfare states”. We should be pleased that teachers are willing to do so, but concerned that we need them to do so.
In our recent survey of more than 1,000 school leaders, nearly half said that the current situation would become untenable within two years, with two thirds seeing the breaking point within four years. Schools are running down surpluses (stored up prudently for just this situation), cutting essential maintenance and – inevitably – cutting back on staffing. At some point everything that can be trimmed has been trimmed, and deficits beckon.
We can talk about efficiency and reallocation, and we will, but ultimately you need sufficient money coming into the system. Even in an era of freedom, we have the right to expect government to supply the foundations for autonomous schools to succeed: sufficient teachers and resources for a start. Education is not a “cost” to society. It is an investment and cuts now will damage society in years to come.
We should not accept the argument that further cuts to the education budget are a sensible price to pay to eradicate the deficit: low skills, poor productivity and social fragmentation will plunge us back into the red in the future.
Within this context, there are a number of things the government could do to make things better. It should allocate the limited funds we do have where they are most needed. This implies a national fair funding formula. Given the lack of any cushion, this should be approached cautiously but it could be done.
Another small change that would have a big impact is automatic registration for Pupil Premium funding. It does not make sense for school leaders to chase families for eligibility, when someone somewhere in government already has this information. More financial training would help, as would investment in professional standards for school business managers.
Another strategy is quite simple: stop changing things. Constant turmoil carries a high price. Every cohort of students currently in secondary school faces a different set of exams, each of which has implications for staffing and resources. We have barely implemented one performance measure (Progress 8) before we’re busy adding another (compulsory EBacc).
We can no longer afford this constant tinkering. Such turmoil also alienates good teachers, frustrating their desire to make a difference, eating into professional development time with policy briefings and driving some from the profession. Excessive staff turnover carries a cost to both finances and standards.
For school leaders themselves, advance planning and transparency are the key.
From my experience weathering a previous recession, it seems it helps to plan early for the worst case, enabling the organisation to make cuts naturally rather than traumatically. Being honest with people about the pressures and the possible solutions limits conflict.
It feels like the education system faces more of everything except resources. More pupils, more tests, more demands but fewer teachers, less money and lower pay. The government has become a broken record on accountability and autonomy when the real challenges of our time are now about capacity.
- Russell Hobby is general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers. Visit www.naht.org.uk