Leadership

Winners And Losers From The Teachers’ Pay Grant

Schools with high numbers of disadvantaged pupils are more likely to struggle to cover the cost of this year’s teacher pay rise, according to this research by the EPI (the Education Policy Institute).

It shows that because the cash is distributed according to the number of pupils, some schools will lose out. And those will be schools with higher numbers of disadvantaged pupils – because they tend to have lower pupil-to-teacher ratios.

Create an account to read this article

£7.00+ VAT

One-off purchase

Purchase and Download today

Register for free

No Credit Card required

Register for free
Access to 3 free articles
Free TeachingTimes Report every month

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#38551"
  ["title"]=>
  string(21) "SLT Complete Magazine"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(10) "Leadership"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(56) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/slt_slt_complete_magazine/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1297093367)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(13) "post-38551-29"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(33) "Download School Leadership Today."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(453) "... Finance & FundraisingGrant (DSG). The grants mainstreamed into the DSG for2011-12 are:School Standards GrantSchool Standards Grant (Personalisation)School Development Grant (but not Area Based Grant)Ethnic Minority Grant (EMAG)1:2:1 tuitionExtended schools – sustainability and subsidy grantsDiploma Formula GrantTargeted support for the National Strategy allocated toschoolsLondon Pay Addition ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(4) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(21) "SLT Complete Magazine"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(33) "Download School Leadership Today."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(5694) "www.teachingtimes.comSchool Business Finance & FundraisingGrant (DSG). The grants mainstreamed into the DSG for2011-12 are:School Standards GrantSchool Standards Grant (Personalisation)School Development Grant (but not Area Based Grant)Ethnic Minority Grant (EMAG)1:2:1 tuitionExtended schools – sustainability and subsidy grantsDiploma Formula GrantTargeted support for the National Strategy allocated toschoolsLondon Pay Addition GrantAlthough not on the published list as a specific grant,the ‘new’ DSG includes the funding for specialist schoolstatus including additional specialisms.The basis for the level of the 2011-12 DSG is the levelof funding to an authority for 2010-11 with the ‘nowmainstreamed’ grants added. This, adjusted for any changein pupil numbers in the local authority (LA), is set as the baselevel for the LA funding for 2011-12, before the addition ofthe Pupil Premium. The budget is effectively ‘flat cash’ atthe pupil level and the vast majority of any increase abovethis for a local authority is solely because of increased pupilnumbers. There is only a very small (0.1 per cent) real-termsincrease in the overall budget.Schools should also be aware that the base funding for2010-11, and hence the starting point for 2011-12 funding,has built into it only seven months’ funding for the 2.3 percent teachers’ pay rise (ie. September 2010 to March 2011).In 2011-12 schools will need to find the full year costs ofthis rise. This means that the base budget is already nearly0.6 per cent down in cash terms (for the mathematicallyinclined, this is (2.3 x 5) ÷ (12 x 0.6), assuming a schoolspends 60 per cent of its budget on teachers). So there isalready a shortfall that will be exacerbated in schools thathave any significant overall incremental drift in terms of theirstaff salaries.It is strongly suggested in the DfE papers that LAs lookto replicate the 2010-11 distributional methodology, so asto prevent any excessive turbulence in individual schoolbudget shares. In addition to this guidance, a MinimumFunding Guarantee (MFG) has been set at 1.5 per cent belowthe per-pupil rate for 2010-11. This guarantee excludes sixthform funding but applies to a school’s overall budget fromlast year before the Pupil Premium is applied. This will allowfor some element of local redistribution, if that is proposedthrough the School Forum, while providing some degree ofprotection against major turbulence.The School Forum will have a very important role indetermining the way that funding is distributed at local leveland it will be important that school representatives are fullybriefed to represent the views of school leaders. It is a bitof a voyage into the unknown, as not knowing the fundingnnnnnnnnnnmethodology and any transitional protection for 2012onwards is a real hindrance to strategic financial planning.There is a risk that not making appropriate adjustments for2011-12 could lead to schools ‘falling off a bigger cliff’ inApril 2012.The principle of developing a methodology to fund theeducation of deprived pupils, the ‘Pupil Premium’, can begenerally welcomed. But the fact that this is being achievedmainly through redistribution rather than any significantreal-terms increase in funding is regrettable, as this willundoubtedly produce ‘losers’ as well as ‘winners’. It is goodto see that such funding is not being ring-fenced at schoollevel – that it is a matter for governing bodies, and throughthose bodies the headteacher and senior leadership teamof a school will draw up and manage strategies for the bestway to use this money to help disadvantaged pupils achievebetter results.As the white paper makes clear, with autonomy comesaccountability, and schools will be required to produce anannual report for parents on how the premium is used. Therewill be changes to the performance tables to show how wellthe pupils receiving the Pupil Premium have achieved.A change of planThe 2011-12 figure for the premium was revealed in thepress before the DSG publication as £430 per pupil wheretheir household income is less than £16,000 per year, at acost to the overall budget of £625 million. This is a changefrom the government’s initial plan of providing a biggerboost to the level of premium in those authorities wherethe current level of funding for deprivation is low. A flat rateapproach has been used this year, although this may wellbe varied in future years. It will be based on those studentseligible for free school meals (FSM) in the January returnto the department and is effective from 1 April 2011. Apremium at the same level is being given to looked-afterchildren (LACs) with a smaller allowance, set next year at£200, for the children of service families.The introduction of the premium is being phased inover the four years of the CSR and the final annual figurehas been set at an overall expenditure of £2.5 billion, whichwould point to a final figure in the region of £1,720 per pupil– although the addition of an area cost adjustment will meanthat this will be slightly higher in a few authorities (mainlyin London and the south-east). Given the overall financialcommitment to supporting disadvantaged students,this figure implies an evenly stepped approach to theimplementation (£1.25 billion in 2012-13 and £1.875 billionin 2013-14), and it would be helpful for schools to know theactual phasing for planning purposes. It is probably moreimportant for those schools that will be losing fundingthrough redistribution to know what is happening thanthose who will see their funding"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(5) {
        [0]=>
        string(7) "winners"
        [1]=>
        string(6) "losers"
        [2]=>
        string(8) "teachers"
        [3]=>
        string(3) "pay"
        [4]=>
        string(5) "grant"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Leadership

SLT Complete Magazine

7 Feb 2011

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#38544"
  ["title"]=>
  string(30) "Funding for future generations"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(1) {
    [0]=>
    string(10) "Leadership"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(65) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/slt_funding_for_future_generations/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1297092008)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-38544-0"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(175) "Wondering what government cuts mean for your school? SLT’s finance expert Malcolm Trobe examines the implications of the recent white paper and Comprehensive Spending Review"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(453) "... Finance & FundraisingGrant (DSG). The grants mainstreamed into the DSG for2011-12 are:School Standards GrantSchool Standards Grant (Personalisation)School Development Grant (but not Area Based Grant)Ethnic Minority Grant (EMAG)1:2:1 tuitionExtended schools – sustainability and subsidy grantsDiploma Formula GrantTargeted support for the National Strategy allocated toschoolsLondon Pay Addition ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(4) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(30) "Funding for future generations"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(175) "Wondering what government cuts mean for your school? SLT’s finance expert Malcolm Trobe examines the implications of the recent white paper and Comprehensive Spending Review"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(5707) "47www.teachingtimes.com n Vol 2.6School BusinessFinance & FundraisingSchool Leadership TodayIt is still early days in terms of clearly identifying the fullimplications of the Comprehensive Spending Review(CSR). Even the publication of the revised DedicatedSchool Grant (DSG) on 13 December only revealed theimpact of changes of the national distribution of funding tolocal authorities and it will be some time into 2011 beforethe effects of any changes in local formula are known.The government has retained the basic principlesof the ‘spend plus’ methodology which has beenused since 2006, although the austerity measuresmean that the ‘plus’ bit has effectively disappeared.The departmental papers also make it very clearthat the published arrangements are for 2011-12only and there is an intention to make some furtherdistributional changes in 2012-13. It is doubtful thatthere will be sufficient time to introduce for 2012 theNational Funding Formula (NFF) approach indicatedin the white paper The Importance of Teaching, giventhe lead in time required to develop, model and testsuch a major change. It is likely, however, that if it isclear that a NFF is coming before the end of the CSRperiod, then 2012-13 could well be a transition year.It is important that schools with sixth forms areaware that the funding guarantees built into theannouncements of 13 December apply only up to16-year-olds. The overall funding system for 16- to18-year-olds is due to be published after this issue ofSLT goes to press.One of the major changes for 2011-12 is to put anumber of grants into the mainstream Dedicated SchoolsFundingfor futuregenerationsWondering what government cutsmean for your school? SLT’s financeexpert Malcolm Trobe examines theimplications of the recent white paper andComprehensive Spending Review48 Vol 2.6 n www.teachingtimes.comSchool Business Finance & FundraisingGrant (DSG). The grants mainstreamed into the DSG for2011-12 are:School Standards GrantSchool Standards Grant (Personalisation)School Development Grant (but not Area Based Grant)Ethnic Minority Grant (EMAG)1:2:1 tuitionExtended schools – sustainability and subsidy grantsDiploma Formula GrantTargeted support for the National Strategy allocated toschoolsLondon Pay Addition GrantAlthough not on the published list as a specific grant,the ‘new’ DSG includes the funding for specialist schoolstatus including additional specialisms.The basis for the level of the 2011-12 DSG is the levelof funding to an authority for 2010-11 with the ‘nowmainstreamed’ grants added. This, adjusted for any changein pupil numbers in the local authority (LA), is set as the baselevel for the LA funding for 2011-12, before the addition ofthe Pupil Premium. The budget is effectively ‘flat cash’ atthe pupil level and the vast majority of any increase abovethis for a local authority is solely because of increased pupilnumbers. There is only a very small (0.1 per cent) real-termsincrease in the overall budget.Schools should also be aware that the base funding for2010-11, and hence the starting point for 2011-12 funding,has built into it only seven months’ funding for the 2.3 percent teachers’ pay rise (ie. September 2010 to March 2011).In 2011-12 schools will need to find the full year costs ofthis rise. This means that the base budget is already nearly0.6 per cent down in cash terms (for the mathematicallyinclined, this is (2.3 x 5) ÷ (12 x 0.6), assuming a schoolspends 60 per cent of its budget on teachers). So there isalready a shortfall that will be exacerbated in schools thathave any significant overall incremental drift in terms of theirstaff salaries.It is strongly suggested in the DfE papers that LAs lookto replicate the 2010-11 distributional methodology, so asto prevent any excessive turbulence in individual schoolbudget shares. In addition to this guidance, a MinimumFunding Guarantee (MFG) has been set at 1.5 per cent belowthe per-pupil rate for 2010-11. This guarantee excludes sixthform funding but applies to a school’s overall budget fromlast year before the Pupil Premium is applied. This will allowfor some element of local redistribution, if that is proposedthrough the School Forum, while providing some degree ofprotection against major turbulence.The School Forum will have a very important role indetermining the way that funding is distributed at local leveland it will be important that school representatives are fullybriefed to represent the views of school leaders. It is a bitof a voyage into the unknown, as not knowing the fundingnnnnnnnnnnmethodology and any transitional protection for 2012onwards is a real hindrance to strategic financial planning.There is a risk that not making appropriate adjustments for2011-12 could lead to schools ‘falling off a bigger cliff’ inApril 2012.The principle of developing a methodology to fund theeducation of deprived pupils, the ‘Pupil Premium’, can begenerally welcomed. But the fact that this is being achievedmainly through redistribution rather than any significantreal-terms increase in funding is regrettable, as this willundoubtedly produce ‘losers’ as well as ‘winners’. It is goodto see that such funding is not being ring-fenced at schoollevel – that it is a matter for governing bodies, and throughthose bodies the headteacher and senior leadership teamof a school will draw up and manage strategies for the bestway to use this money to help disadvantaged pupils achievebetter results.As the white paper makes clear, with autonomy comesaccountability, and schools will be required"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(5) {
        [0]=>
        string(7) "winners"
        [1]=>
        string(6) "losers"
        [2]=>
        string(8) "teachers"
        [3]=>
        string(3) "pay"
        [4]=>
        string(5) "grant"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Leadership

Funding for future generations

7 Feb 2011

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#57715"
  ["title"]=>
  string(34) "Leadership Briefing: Report Update"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(4) {
    [0]=>
    string(20) "Financial Management"
    [1]=>
    string(22) "HR and Staff Wellbeing"
    [2]=>
    string(10) "Leadership"
    [3]=>
    string(10) "Technology"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(64) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/leadership-briefing-report-update/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1563968968)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-57715-2"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(291) "Leadership Briefing is a weekly online summary of all that’s new and relevant to education, linked to original source documents that can be downloaded or viewed on screen, and available to everyone in your school leadership team.      The briefings here give a sample of what’s on offer."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(383) "a more disadvantaged student intake are less likely to receive enough additional pay grant to cover the costs of their salary increases. The funding floor causes small schools to receive, proportionally, up to twice as much additional funding as larger schools. Web LinkWinners and losers from the Teachers’ Pay GrantEARLY ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(4) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(34) "Leadership Briefing: Report Update"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(291) "Leadership Briefing is a weekly online summary of all that’s new and relevant to education, linked to original source documents that can be downloaded or viewed on screen, and available to everyone in your school leadership team.      The briefings here give a sample of what’s on offer."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(5754) "a more disadvantaged student intake are less likely to receive enough additional pay grant to cover the costs of their salary increases. The funding floor causes small schools to receive, proportionally, up to twice as much additional funding as larger schools. Web LinkWinners and losers from the Teachers’ Pay GrantEARLY CAREER CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (CPD)This qualitative research by the NFER looks at evidence on the development needs of early career teachers (ECTs) and effective practice in meeting needs. It explores the support required by teachers in their early careers and good practice in CPD for early career teachers. The study revealed that new teachers commonly experience ‘practice shock’ when beginning to teach and need support from colleagues to help them acclimatise to the reality of work in schools. Recent educational policy announcements suggest there is an increasing recognition of the need to strengthen teacher training and CPD. These set out a range of commitments. These included: ensuring all new teachers have the right support in place at the beginning of their careers by increasing the length of the induction period from one to two years; developing an Early Career Framework of support and mentoring for all NQTs; and supporting the development of new specialist qualifications for experienced classroom teachers. For such reforms to teacher training and CPD to have a positive impact on the experiences of teachers and the quality of our education system, evidence is required to identify good practice and the potential benefit it brings. In this report, examples of effective practice in high-performing jurisdictions are set alongside in-depth data gathered from teachers working in 20 schools in England that have been identified as having higher than average rates of retention of early career teachers. Key Findings: New teachers commonly experience ‘practice shock’ when beginning to teach and need collegial support to help them acclimatise to the reality of work in schools. A supportive school culture is critical to the success of early career teachers’ professional development. Early career teachers commonly report that informal conversations with colleagues in school meet their professional development needs more than formal CPD. While mentoring emerges in a positive light, there is some evidence of a perception that formal conversations with mentors are primarily evaluative, with a lesser or absent developmental function. Effective professional development should start from a clear appreciation of the objective of the development activity, benefits from collaborative learning opportunities, such as coaching and mentoring, and needs appropriate conditions, such as the right climate and culture, professional responsibility, and sufficient time and resources. ECTs and MCTs reported that their main development priorities at the start of their induction year included: behaviour management; use and understanding of assessment; pedagogical knowledge; and supporting pupils with particular needs, such as pupils with special educational needs and disability (SEND). Other common, but less frequently reported development needs included subject knowledge, particularly for NQTs who were non-specialists, as well as understanding of safeguarding processes. In addition, some interviewees reported that ‘basic things’, such as what to do in a fire drill, how to take the register, and where to go for lunch, together with practical concerns such as how to manage marking workload and learning to prioritise, were also common issues that NQTs typically wanted support and guidance with. The vast majority of ECTs described having two mentors as an NQT, one, a ‘professional mentor’, who would typically be a member of the school’s senior leadership team with responsibility for coordinating the school’s induction arrangements, and the other a ‘subject mentor’, who would provide day-to-day support and coaching. This split in roles was generally valued by ECTs, as they benefitted from having two formal points of contact. All of the ECTs had taken part in structured training programmes, designed to cover core knowledge and professional skills that schools thought teachers should have developed to a certain standard during their time as an NQT. These programmes often included a common spine of topics which included: behaviour management; use and understanding of assessment; support for specific pupil groups; subject and curriculum knowledge; pedagogical knowledge; lesson planning; and safeguarding. Sessions were typically delivered once or twice a fortnight, usually within or at the end of the school day, and lasted for approximately one to two hours. The number of formal observations undertaken in schools appeared to vary, with some undertaking approximately one formal observation every half term, or six over the course of the induction year. Interviewees sometimes made distinctions between these formal observations, which contributed directly to judgements about the extent to which NQTs were meeting the expected standards, to more informal, developmental observations. These were often undertaken by the subject mentor, and sometimes by the professional mentor, and would often occur much more frequently, sometimes once a week. They would typically involve a ‘drop in’ or ‘micro’ observation, where only part of the lesson would be observed. ECTs’ and MCTs’ positive"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(4) {
        [0]=>
        string(6) "losers"
        [1]=>
        string(8) "teachers"
        [2]=>
        string(3) "pay"
        [3]=>
        string(5) "grant"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(4) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(20) "Financial Management"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
      [1]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(22) "HR and Staff Wellbeing"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
      [2]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
      [3]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Technology"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Financial Management

Leadership Briefing: Report Update

24 Jul 2019

array(8) {
  ["distinct_key"]=>
  string(10) "post#43618"
  ["title"]=>
  string(49) "Two and a half cheers for the new funding formula"
  ["categories"]=>
  array(2) {
    [0]=>
    string(20) "Financial Management"
    [1]=>
    string(10) "Leadership"
  }
  ["url"]=>
  string(52) "https://www.teachingtimes.com/slt81-funding-formula/"
  ["post_date_timestamp"]=>
  int(1497952083)
  ["objectID"]=>
  string(12) "post-43618-0"
  ["_snippetResult"]=>
  array(2) {
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(94) "Peter Downes assesses the new funding formula and finds some progress and some major concerns."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(2) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(328) "... was about the principles of a new formula, this consultation gave some figures for people to scrutinise. Not surprisingly, it has provoked much reaction. The winners and losers have rushed into print. MPs in areas which will have more money have claimed credit for the success of their campaigns; Heads ..."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
    }
  }
  ["_highlightResult"]=>
  array(5) {
    ["title"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(49) "Two and a half cheers for the new funding formula"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["author"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(12) "Peter Downes"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
    ["excerpt"]=>
    array(3) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(94) "Peter Downes assesses the new funding formula and finds some progress and some major concerns."
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(4) "none"
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(0) {
      }
    }
    ["content"]=>
    array(4) {
      ["value"]=>
      string(5636) "Stage 2 of the government’s process of moving to a ‘Schools national funding formula’ was published just before Christmas. Unlike Stage 1, which was about the principles of a new formula, this consultation gave some figures for people to scrutinise. Not surprisingly, it has provoked much reaction. The winners and losers have rushed into print. MPs in areas which will have more money have claimed credit for the success of their campaigns; Heads and Governors in areas likely to be worse off have howled in anguish. In this article we will look at:Exactly why a new funding formula was necessaryHow previous opportunities for achieving this have been missedWhat is positive and welcome in the latest proposalWhat needs to be done to make it better Before the 1988 Education Reform Act and the introduction of Local Management of Schools (LMS), Heads and Governors had no idea of what money was being spent on their schools. Everything was provided and paid for by the Local Authority (LA) who really did control schools, deciding how many teachers could be employed, how many responsibility points allocated, how many technicians, secretaries and teaching assistants appointed and even when the classrooms were to be re-decorated. Of course, the LA councillors and officers knew what it all cost because they raised most of the money through the rates. Consequently the money spent on schools varied widely across the country, depending largely on the priority councillors gave to education and their political appetite for raising taxes. LMS gave schools much greater financial autonomy, allocating to the governors the sum that would have been spent by the LA. This was broadly welcomed at the time, giving schools greater flexibility, at the margins, to adapt their spending to local needs. So far, so good. But Ken Baker’s 1988 Act also introduced a national curriculum, national testing, leading to a national inspection regime and national school league tables. Financial management and budgeting decisions became a hot topic in professional associations, especially the Secondary Heads Association (SHA). Heads started to compare their budgets with similar schools in other parts of the country and were astonished to discover the different levels of funding available. In about 1992 it dawned upon secondary school Heads that their schools were being judged against national criteria but being funded on the basis of local decision-making. The manifest unfairness of this led to the setting-up of a campaign for a fairer national funding formula and the first pamphlet on this issue was commissioned by the SHA from the London School of Economics in 1994.  Over the last 22 years the clamour for fair funding has grown as public scrutiny of school performance has intensified. Professional and academic support for a more equitable distribution of resources has spread widely but has only recently gained political support.Opportunities for reform have been missed. John Major’s Conservative colleagues were impressed by the cogency and clarity of the case but felt unable to take matters further. As one senior Department for Education official put it: ‘In matters such as funding, a little obfuscation assists the political process.’  The Labour government took it much more seriously and set up a powerful and widely representative working party – the Education Funding Strategy Group. This group commissioned specialist reports on all aspects of school funding and came up in 2002 with a full and detailed proposal which would have commanded widespread if not unanimous support. Although they appeared to be convinced by the merits of most of the proposals, the DES Ministers, Charles Clarke and David Miliband, refused to recommend it for implementation.  In broad terms, it would have meant moving money away from the Labour conurbations into the Tory shires and that was hardly likely to appeal to Tony Blair. With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that this was a big mistake because the Labour government was, to its credit, increasing expenditure on education significantly in real terms between 2000 and 2005 so it would have been able to improve allocations to the less well-funded areas of the country without having too negative an impact on those who had generous funding (sometimes without realising their good fortune). In the last fourteen years there have been many changes in the way education funding is administered and distributed, generally moving power away from local to central government with money for schools coming from central government as a ring-fenced Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG), with limited powers for the LA-based Schools Forum to adjust its distribution formula to individual schools. Apart from some specific grants and technical adjustments, the government’s policy was to replicate the historical funding pattern so as not to cause major disruption. The exception to that came in the last year of the coalition government when an extra £350 million was built into the allocation for the benefit of those at the bottom of the pile. The fundamental disparities have never been addressed. Let’s be clear: the advocates of reform were not claiming that funding should be the same in cash terms across the country. They acknowledged that it costs more to employ a teacher in London than it does in Barnsley because London teachers’ salaries are higher because of cost of living factors. But, even allowing for that, the real terms funding gap was, in some cases, £1,500 per"
      ["matchLevel"]=>
      string(7) "partial"
      ["fullyHighlighted"]=>
      bool(false)
      ["matchedWords"]=>
      array(4) {
        [0]=>
        string(7) "winners"
        [1]=>
        string(6) "losers"
        [2]=>
        string(8) "teachers"
        [3]=>
        string(5) "grant"
      }
    }
    ["categories"]=>
    array(2) {
      [0]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(20) "Financial Management"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
      [1]=>
      array(3) {
        ["value"]=>
        string(10) "Leadership"
        ["matchLevel"]=>
        string(4) "none"
        ["matchedWords"]=>
        array(0) {
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Financial Management

Two and a half cheers for the new funding formula

20 Jun 2017