30 April 2010
Government claims that schools are sitting on huge cash reserves are wrong, according to the National Association of Head Teachers.
The Department for Children, Schools and Families said in March that schools were keeping too high balances. It warned that the government would intervene unless these were spent.
But the NAHT today said its own findings showed ‘the assumption that schools are sitting on vast wealth is largely fictitious’, and that only 7.5% of schools, around 1,574, held balances above permitted thresholds.
Local authorities can claw back balances greater than 8% of revenue for primary schools and 5% for secondaries after any locally defined commitments. But these definitions vary widely and clawback schemes ‘ranged from the inactive to the rigorous’, the NAHT said. The research was published to coincide with the association’s annual conference, taking place in Liverpool this weekend.
The NAHT said governments might see reducing schools balances as a ‘quick win’ to save public money, but the threat of tight spending rounds made it prudent for schools to hold balances.
General secretary Mick Brookes said: ‘We have uncovered the fact that there is a large element of guesswork involved in the understanding of schools finance.’
He cited figures showing 36 education authorities defined all balances as ‘committed’ and ten as 'uncommitted’ under their varying local definitions. Some local authorities were treating funds allocated for specific programmes such as Building Schools for the Future as 'uncommitted’.
The DCSF report showed schools held balances totalling £1.8bn in 2008/09, equivalent to 5.2% of their income. The department advised that small surpluses were acceptable but ‘if we do not see a substantial reduction in excessive surplus revenue balances, the government will consider further action from 2011/12 to bring the total down’.
Meanwhile, the NAHT’s annual conference called for an inquiry into alleged ‘dodgy practices’ by information technology providers that exploit schools’ lack of technical expertise to overcharge them.
Brookes said: ‘There is real evidence here of mis-selling and poor maintenance that could be a major scandal. We believe that there should be a major inquiry into the provision and maintenance of IT equipment.’
Teachers’ classroom skills did not necessarily mean they had ‘the sort of expertise necessary to make the right choices when it comes to the purchase of IT equipment’, he said.
The NAHT also found evidence of bulk-buying organisations making savings on procurement but failing to pass those on to schools, Brookes said.
