By David Williams
15 April 2010
All three major parties are agreed that schools with more disadvantaged pupils should be given increased funding.
Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats all made commitments this week to introduce a ‘pupil premium’.
The policy would cost an extra £2.5bn a year, according to figures from the LibDems.
It was also billed as extra funding by the Tories, with no school losing out as a result, and would additionally be allocated for children from armed forces families.
Labour’s manifesto said it would ‘ensure that extra funding to take account of deprivation follows the pupil’.
Mick Brookes, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, broadly welcomed the consensus. But he told Public Finance that such a system should be targeted towards deprived rural communities, as inner-city authorities were typically already well-funded.
‘Designing a formula that would deliver that money according to those circumstances would be quite tricky,’ he added.
Brookes questioned Labour proposals to cut money from the education budget while employing more teachers. Labour’s manifesto claimed that, while £500m could be removed from central budgets and quangos, another £950m could be saved by more collaboration between schools, smarter procurement and back-office efficiency plans.
The sum would amount to 20% of the total schools budget when staff costs were removed, Brookes said.
Meanwhile, the Tories revealed plans to introduce more independently-run schools set up by parents, and allow parents to take over struggling village schools at risk of closure.
‘Why would a school run by parents be any more viable than one run by the state?’ asked Brookes. ‘I don’t think there’s an appetite for this.’
15 April 2010
All three major parties are agreed that schools with more disadvantaged pupils should be given increased funding.
Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats all made commitments this week to introduce a ‘pupil premium’.
The policy would cost an extra £2.5bn a year, according to figures from the LibDems.
It was also billed as extra funding by the Tories, with no school losing out as a result, and would additionally be allocated for children from armed forces families.
Labour’s manifesto said it would ‘ensure that extra funding to take account of deprivation follows the pupil’.
Mick Brookes, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, broadly welcomed the consensus. But he told Public Finance that such a system should be targeted towards deprived rural communities, as inner-city authorities were typically already well-funded.
‘Designing a formula that would deliver that money according to those circumstances would be quite tricky,’ he added.
Brookes questioned Labour proposals to cut money from the education budget while employing more teachers. Labour’s manifesto claimed that, while £500m could be removed from central budgets and quangos, another £950m could be saved by more collaboration between schools, smarter procurement and back-office efficiency plans.
The sum would amount to 20% of the total schools budget when staff costs were removed, Brookes said.
Meanwhile, the Tories revealed plans to introduce more independently-run schools set up by parents, and allow parents to take over struggling village schools at risk of closure.
‘Why would a school run by parents be any more viable than one run by the state?’ asked Brookes. ‘I don’t think there’s an appetite for this.’
