Creating Value In Schools
Please enjoy this free content - for more Need To Know articles please consider a subscription
Attending the panel discussion ‘The future of education funding: what the spending review means for schools’ (hosted at EdCity) was a useful opportunity to gain insight into the spending review process and the factors constraining decisions this year. It wasn’t a cheerful message, but did clarify key issues and where reforms are needed.
Speakers
Unfortunately, the answer seems to be: not a lot. With promises to increase spending in other areas (e.g. defence), there’s not a lot left over for schools.
While education spending has increased since 2020, it doesn’t feel like it, because increased funds have been absorbed by rising costs, such as on salaries, pensions, SEN, and energy costs.
And although there’s a 4.5% planned growth in pupil funding, school costs are forecast to grow by 6.5% in 2025-6 – so there’s already a gap in provision.
High needs funding has increased by 60% since 2015, but spend has increased more than that, and many LAs are facing big deficits. The high needs overspend is forecast to reach over £2 billion by 2027-28.
Rising SEN costs limit the chance of creating or benefitting from savings elsewhere.
Overall, the government doesn’t have a lot of wriggle room or options.
Changes to the national funding formula may have created a sense of greater fairness, but haven’t worked in favour of schools in more challenging circumstances.
Natalie Perera pointed out that there are potentially savings to come from falling rolls: can this money be ring-fenced and redistributed elsewhere – to support schools in more disadvantaged circumstances, for example? She stressed that there had been very few inroads into narrowing gaps for persistently disadvantaged pupils, and if we want more equity in the system, this is something that needs to be addressed.
Civil servants will be analysing every element of spend, line by budget line. There will be back and forth discussions with colleagues at the Treasury, as they ask for variations and versions and what would be the impact of cutting X, Y and Z. Compromise, trading and negotiation feature highly.
It was acknowledged that sadly departments don’t always know what’s going on elsewhere and there can be a lack of joined up thinking or awareness of the cumulative impact of a decision. For example, so often early years funding is what gets cut, but this has long-term knock-on effects.
Can schools help the situation by being more efficient? View from the panel: not really. Schools and trusts are already doing or have done a lot to become more efficient. While there is some scope for further improvement, it’s not enough to make up budget shortfalls.
With staffing costs the biggest proportion of school spending, it wasn’t surprising that decisions around the teacher pay award featured in discussions, with talk of what’s the ‘least worst’ option. Not granting the recommended pay award would mean risking teacher recruitment and retention; granting the pay award means cutting spending elsewhere or forcing schools to bear the burden in their budgets, which would be deeply problematic.
However, the announcement regarding the pay award came after the event, so now we know that the pay award has been granted, but not quite fully funded. Check out EPI’s comment on the pay award.
Members of the panel highlighted that while more mainstream, inclusive provision is a good plan in theory, in practice there needs to be support and funding put into that. For example, teachers need more training in order to be confident in supporting learners with complex needs. The big increase has been in SEMH needs and speech and language difficulties.
Also the current accountability system doesn’t incentivise schools to take on SEND pupils. Could there be a way to shift things, so schools are encouraged to be reflective of their local intake in their admissions process?
Are there still culture shifts that need to take place within schools too? For example, do teachers all feel that SEND pupils are their responsibility?
The depth and extent and impact of child poverty was highlighted by both Natalie Perera and Kate Anstey. Currently there are 4.5 million children living in poverty, which means we’re approaching 1 in 3 children being in poverty.
Kate Anstey stressed the long-term, lifelong impacts of child poverty, how the depth of poverty is increasing, and its effect on every aspect of the school day.
Action on school uniform to reduce its cost is welcome, as is the breakfast club initiative, but it needs to be properly thought through – and funded. The current £7,400 threshold for free school meals is too low, she feels, and would like to see FSM extended.
Kate spoke strongly about the ‘poverty-producing’ effect of the two-child cap on benefit, and also her concerns that policies such as disability benefit cuts would impact on children.
The government has promised a child poverty strategy, which was due to come out in the summer, but a delay to the autumn has just been announced.
The CPAG estimates that child poverty costs society £39 billion a year - see the cost of child poverty 2023 for more detail.
