School funding: promised increases are actually real-term cuts – and poorer schools are hit hardestJanet Lord, Manchester Metropolitan University
Recent changes to school funding in England mean that, although there may seem to be more money for education, in general schools will be worse off in 2021 than they have been over the last few years. In the second half of 2019, the government announced a £14 billion increase in funding for schools in England. This is over three years: £2.6 billion in 2020-21, increasing to £4.8 billion in 2021-22 and £7.1 billion in 2022-23.
The National Education Union (NEU) analysed the figures, and despite the cash injection, found “a strong link between deprivation and the scale of government cuts to school funding”. The NEU suggests that, when inflation is taken into account, over 16,000 schools will have less income in April 2020, compared to 2015.
Over the past decade, school spending per pupil in the UK has fallen by about 8% in real terms. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, this is the largest decline since at least the 1970s. For historical reasons to do with how funding used to be calculated, these cuts will hit schools in the most disadvantaged areas hard.
Feeling the effects
Children in classrooms – particularly in disadvantaged areas – are already feeling the very real effects of funding cuts. Staff are being made redundant, schools have fewer resources, and some schools are even considering closing for half a day per week to save money. Recent apparent funding increases are in fact real-term cuts – and teachers and parents are rightly concerned.
In April, a survey of 8,600 teachers and other school staff conducted by the National Education Union found that 91% of teachers felt that poverty was a factor in limiting children’s capacity to learn. Three-quarters of those surveyed blamed poverty for children falling asleep during lessons, being unable to concentrate and behaving badly.
Many teachers in schools face these problems every day, while also having to handle issues that arise as a result of austerity and cutbacks to other services, such as health and social care. As a result, nearly half (45%) of teachers surveyed said that they have spent their own money buying basic necessities for pupils in the last year.
Yet current government policy does nothing to level the playing field in terms of structural inequalities: in fact, it reinforces them.
A complex system
School funding in England is complicated, partly because there are so many kinds of schools – between 70 and 90, on one estimate – and partly because the mechanisms change quite often. It’s also complex because there are so many rules, depending on whether pupils are certain ages, or have special educational needs.
In general, however, people tend to have two key concerns: how much money is going into schools from the government, and whether this money is being distributed fairly. All children in England between the ages of five and 16 are entitled to a free place at a state school.
Maintained schools are so called because they are funded and controlled by the local authority. Maintained schools must follow the national curriculum and other rules, for example about teachers’ pay and conditions.
Academies and free schools are state-funded, non-fee-paying schools, which are are independent of local authorities and operate outside of their control. These schools are run by trusts or sponsors such as parents’ groups or businesses. They still get funding from the government, but they can decide how to spend their budget themselves, and they can set their own entrance criteria.
A 2013 report by the Academies Commission stated that it received evidence of some popular schools, including academies, attempting to select and exclude certain pupils; there tends to be a decrease in the proportion of disadvantaged pupils enrolling in academies, and a resultant increase in intakes in maintained schools.
The fact that academies set their own admissions policies “attracted controversy and fuelled concerns that the growth of academies may entrench rather than mitigate social inequalities”, according to the report.
The National Funding Formula (NFF) is the formula that is used to allocate school funding. This is a basic per-pupil funding allocation, and then there are adjustments for things like additional needs. The NFF is used to calculate funding for individual schools, and then the total for an area is calculated and the amount passed on to the local authority.
Councils then set their own formula, in agreement with school forums made up of head teachers, to distribute the cash. The formula must include both a basic local funding unit for each pupil attending the school, and a measure of deprivation. It can also take into consideration some other elements, such as the number of pupils with English as an additional language.
Academy funding comes directly from the Department for Education (DfE); local authorities instruct the DfE how much to pay each academy in their area. This is all quite likely to change, though – and then it is possible that NFF funding will be paid directly to all mainstream schools.
Another important source of funding for schools is the pupil premium, which was introduced by the government in 2011. The amount is allocated based on the number of pupils who are or have been eligible for free school meals, and also those who have parents in the armed forces, and intended to raise the attainment of disadvantaged pupils.
Schools are accountable for how they spend the pupil premium, but they don’t have to spend it just on eligible pupils. So the question remains: why are measures such as pupil premium and the national funding formula failing to level the playing field?
In July 2019, the Education Select Committee reported that it was clear that pupil premium was not always directed at disadvantaged children – rather, it is often used to make up shortfalls in school budgets. As the select committee noted, schools should not have to choose between running their core operations and supporting disadvantaged pupils. The fact that this is happening shows that there is simply not enough money in the school funding system.
School costs have increased across a range of areas, including annual pay award and salary raises, inflation, pensions and special educational needs provision. School funding has not kept pace. Jon Andrews, director for school system and performance at the Education Policy Institute think-tank, said that the government’s policies on education funding “target money towards schools with less challenging intakes and lower levels of disadvantage – at a time when progress in closing the gap between disadvantage pupils and their peers has stalled”.
Promised increases to funding are likely to be real-term cuts. Schools and children are suffering because of inequitable policies – and this will have far-reaching consequences for the economy and wider society, long into the future.
By Sean Coughlan BBC News education and family correspondent 8 November 2018
An article in the Guardian today (see link, left) says:Grammar schools in England will be given tens of millions of pounds to expand, after the education secretary, Damian Hinds, unveiled a fund for selective schools that agree to improve applications from disadvantaged children.
The £50m fund will potentially allow the creation of new “satellite” campuses of grammar schools away from their existing sites, although the Department for Education said there would be a “very high bar” for such expansions.
“By creating new schools where they are needed most and helping all great schools to grow, we can give parents greater choice in looking at schools that are right for their family and give children of all backgrounds access to a world-class education,” Hinds said.
One of the things I teach about is social justice. and what concerns me here is access to education. We know that marginalised groups do not have access to the same educational opportunities as do other groups, for all kinds of intersecting reasons.
Some great tweets this morning say it all:
Angela Rayner: All schools need more funding, Tory answer? Pour more money into a few grammar schools. Buildings crumbling&class sizes increasing, Tory answer? Build more free schools(a programme that is failing). Tories continue to ignore parents, school leaders,teachers&evidence based policy.
and Professor Tim Bale, who teaches politics at Queen Mary:
Tim Bale: The main argument against grammar schools is not that they are 'elitist' & 'divisive' (even if they are), it's that all the research shows that they just don't do the job they are supposed to do, namely to promote social/educational mobility. And yes I did go to one: so shoot me.
Teachers I work with are in schools that quite literally are falling down round their ears; children are going hungry; teachers are spending money on school supplies 73 % – of teachers surveyed said that they regularly purchased stationery items, such as pens, pencils and board markers. Fifty-eight per cent had paid for books. And 43 per cent had paid for art materials. This is from a TES survey of more than 1,800 teachers, conducted jointly with the NEU teaching union and reported in Setember 2017; it reveals that 94 per cent of teachers are having to pay for school essentials such as books, stationery and storage equipment.
Teaching is and always has been the most important job in the world, for all kinds of reasons, one of the most salient of which is fighting inequality. Michael Apple, in his 2013 book 'Can education change society?', finished with the words (p174). 'There is educational work to be done'. Let's get to it!
Some ideas to think about, that the EEF suggest...
- Which explicit strategies can you teach your pupils to help them plan, monitor, and evaluate specific aspects of their learning?
- How can you give them opportunities to use these strategies with support, and then independently?
- How can you ensure you set an appropriate level of challenge to develop pupils’ self-regulation and metacognition in relation to specific learning tasks?
- In the classroom, how can you promote and develop metacognitive talk related to your lesson objectives?
- What professional development is needed to develop your knowledge and understanding of these approaches? Have you considered professional development interventions which have been shown to have an impact in other schools?
What was happening? Had the school and the staff been galvanised into action? Far from it...the staff were depressed and demoralised. They felt at risk, and that the academy broker vultures were circling. I asked what the figures were looking like, and my colleague said
'I have no idea, to be honest I have seen so many meaningless figures today that I have no idea why it's been decided we are not good enough.'
And then, and tellingly...
Kids are going home to no food/heat/clean clothes and are experiencing and seeing all manner of abuse and yet they don't give a s**t about that. Just data.
And my colleague has ben thinking about leaving the profession. No wonder.
Phenomenon-based structure in a curriculum also actively creates better opportunities for integrating different subjects and themes as well as the systematic use of pedagogically meaningful methods, such as inquiry learning, problem-based learning, project learning and portfolios. The phenomenon-based approach is also key in the versatile utilisation of different learning environments (e.g. in diversifying and enriching learning while using eLearning environments).
In the diagram below (taken from http://livetheorganicdream.com/finland-abolishing-school-subjects/) the process is explained.
Will this be the end of subjects, of 'knowledge' Govean style, and the start of an emphasis on process? And will it be the end of HE and traditional academia? And if so, does that matter? It'll be interesting to see how this will pan out in Finland over the years.