It could have been worse... but the spending review will still have far-reaching consequences for the funding of schools and colleges once the dust settles, says Brian Lightman.

Increased pressure

After what seemed like a particularly long period of gestation, the spending review was finally published at the end of October. The big question now is what this will mean to ASCL members in our schools and colleges. Although we will not know the true impact until individual budgets land on our desks in the New Year, I will add a little to the speculation.

Let us at least start with the positive. Our initial reaction has to include some element of cautious relief. There is no doubt that education fared better than most other areas but there are many questions that still remain unanswered. Top of ASCL’s list are the following.

The pupil premium

What will the pupil premium look like in reality? Will schools with fewer pupils from deprived backgrounds end up taking a cut in their baseline funding to pay for the premium in those schools with larger numbers of eligible pupils?

In view of the fact that the real terms increase of 0.1 per cent for schools includes the pupil premium, this seems likely – a fact which now appears to have been generally recognised. This then raises a moral question which Mike Baker, the former BBC education correspondent, identified in his blog (www.mikebakereducation.co.uk/blog): “Targeting available funds on schools serving the poorest pupils seems to me to be right but it was only right and honest to be clear that this would be at the expense of other schools.”

The idea that all students from deprived backgrounds should receive a similar level of base funding wherever they live is, of course, in full accordance with ASCL’s long-held policy advocating an activity-led, national funding formula. However we also know that a move to this kind of funding mechanism will require carefully modelled transitional arrangements. In this first year there seems to be a real threat of significant turbulence and, therefore, a risk of some job losses.

Then there is the question about the likely impact of the pupil premium in terms of achievement of those targeted pupils. In the context of, at best, ‘cash-flat’ budgets the question will be whether schools will actually have the capacity to use that funding for additional provision rather than simply to maintain what is already in place.

Specialist schools

There are two separate issues here – first, whether the concept of specialist schools has had its day; and second, what happens with the funding.

On the first issue the jury seems to be out. Many ASCL members say how much they value the networks and sharing of good practice which the specialist school approach has provided. There is no doubt that it has led to a great deal of genuinely positive innovation. Whether schools need to go through a lengthy process of redesignation in order to achieve a distinctive ethos is far less certain.

What we are clear about is the importance of the funding, which has undoubtedly given schools the ability to innovate and implement personalised support for numerous students. In Wales that flexibility arising from additional funding has never existed and it is extremely difficult to innovate without it, as I know from personal experience.

The question is then what happens to the funding in the short and medium term. In 2011-12 this and other grants such as School Development Grant, School Standards Grant and School Standards Grant (Personalisation) will go into the Dedicated School Grant (DSG).

It will be incumbent upon ASCL members to ensure that school forums put those funds back into secondary schools, rather than the local authority trying to make ‘flattening’ adjustments by spreading it around all schools. This could have disastrous effects with no lead in time for planning – especially as schools will be committed to staffing for the whole of this academic year. In the medium term there is much to clarify about how this funding will be allocated beyond next year.

Post-16 funding

This is the area which will take a genuine cut as increased numbers of students will be funded from a static or even shrinking pot. It is therefore likely that schools with sixth forms as well as FE and sixth form colleges are likely to be hit hard.

Although we will not have clarity until the Priorities for Success document is published in December, there are already indications that 16-18 funding will be static or reduce even though the student numbers in the October count have gone up. It doesn’t take a mathematician to work out the problems here. The Standard Learner Number (SLN) funding level could go down; alternatively the cap of 1.75 SLNs or the level of entitlement funding could be reduced. Whatever happens, things are going to get very tight for colleges and school sixth forms.

Then there is the effect of ending the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) together with the proposed changes to university fees. In my mind this brings into question the achievability of the coalition government’s stated aim of tackling social mobility. I simply cannot believe that the combination of these two factors will not have a greater impact on students from poorer backgrounds.

I am sure that ASCL members will continue to do everything they can to encourage students to aspire towards higher education but it will not be easy.

Other issues

Beyond all of this is the long list of questions about those elements of school funding which are not core budgets but are of central importance to provision.

ASCL branch secretaries are speaking with alarm about the cessation of whole service areas by some local authorities. Examples we have been given include authorities which are no longer intending to offer ICT support or educational psychology provision, even as a traded service which schools could buy back.

Similarly, pre-emptive cuts to Connexions services before any alternative is in place are likely to create massive gaps, often in terms of provision for those who need it most.

As the real uncertainty about capital funding remains, we need to know about the future of devolved capital. While it is quite clear that funding is going to schools rather than central services, schools need the funding and the time to source those services without any break. These kinds of decisions have the potential to add hugely to school costs.

Members in Wales will be looking with interest at one particular aspect of the spending review. As all of the different grants go into core budgets the funding fog which has hitherto prevented comparisons between English and Welsh funding will be much less opaque, making like for like comparisons much easier.

So is there any cause for optimism in this gloomy climate? We have to acknowledge that funding has gone up in real terms over the last decade and that we are, therefore, still in a far better place than we were ten years ago.

But that increase has been accompanied by improvements in standards, an increase in our shared aspirations and greater expectations of society on our service. Nobody would wish to throw all of this away.

While we all attempt to be as ‘efficient’ as possible and identify any possible savings, the principle of ‘more for less’ seems little more than a hollow soundbite.

For some, the increased control over budgets afforded by academy status may be a way forward, at least in the short term. For others the increased autonomy for all schools should provide greater flexibility over expenditure. The prospect of a national funding formula is certainly closer than ever before.

So, while I suppose we reluctantly have to recognise that it could have been even worse, I won’t be raising any glasses in celebration.

• Brian Lightman is ASCL general secretary
  

Designed with IMPACT

© 2024 Association of School and College Leaders | Valid XHTML | Contact us