Education: Funding Statement 3.08 pm The Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash)
(Con) My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now
repeat a Statement made in the other place earlier today by my
right honourable friend the Minister for School Standards and for
Equalities. The Statement is as follows: ...Request free trial
Education: Funding
Statement
3.08 pm
-
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a
Statement made in the other place earlier today by my right
honourable friend the Minister for School Standards and for
Equalities. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, this Government are determined to ensure that
all pupils, regardless of where they live, receive a
world-class education. Over the past seven years we have
made significant progress. There are now 1.8 million more
children in schools that are rated good or outstanding than
there were in 2010, and today we saw an 8% rise in key
stage 2 results, as pupils and teachers rise to meet the
challenge of the new, more demanding curriculum and
assessments.
Looking beyond schools, the Government have prioritised
funding for all phases of education. At the spending
review, we announced that we would be investing an
additional £1 billion a year in early education
entitlements, including funding for the new 30 hours
entitlement and funding to increase the per-child rate that
providers receive. We protected the national base rate per
pupil for 16 to 19 year-olds in sixth forms, sixth-form
colleges and further education colleges in England and, in
his spring Budget, my right honourable friend the
Chancellor announced new investment in technical education
for 16 to 19 year-olds, rising to an additional £500
million per year. We have maintained funding for the adult
education budget, which supports adult skills participation
in cash terms at £1.5 billion per year. We have implemented
reforms to higher education to drive greater competition
and teaching standards. Together, this adds up to a
comprehensive package of support for education at all
stages of life.
We want to ensure that every school has the resources that
it needs, which is why we have protected the schools budget
in real terms since 2010. We set out our intention to
increase funding further in our manifesto, as well as
continuing to protect the pupil premium to support the most
disadvantaged pupils.
We recognise that schools are facing cost pressures. Beyond
the total amount of funding going to our schools, we know
that there are two crucial questions. First, we know that
how schools use their money is important in delivering the
best outcomes for pupils. We will continue to provide
support to help schools use their funding effectively.
Secondly, we know that how funding is distributed across
the country is anachronistic and unfair, and that the
current system is in desperate need of urgent reform.
We have gone further than any previous Government in
reforming school funding. The second stage of our
consultation on a national funding formula for schools
closed in March, and I am grateful to all 25,000 people who
responded, as well as to honourable Members who contributed
in the more than 10 hours of parliamentary debates on
school funding, and many face-to-face meetings, during the
period. It is important that we now consider carefully how
to proceed. As outlined in our manifesto, we will make sure
that no school has its budget cut as a result of the new
formula. We remain committed to working with Parliament and
bringing forward proposals that will command a consensus.
We will set out our plans shortly”.
3.12 pm
-
(Lab)
My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for
repeating that Answer—but whatever gloss he puts on school
funding, the fact is that the amount of money per pupil is
due to go down between now and 2022. As a result, class
sizes will grow and schools will replace qualified teachers
with unqualified staff. The Minister had nothing to say
about this, yet it is worrying parents up and down the
country—except, perhaps, in Northern Ireland. Can he
confirm that there is now to be an increase in school
funding of £150 per pupil in the Province?
The Minister said that no school would have its budget cut
as a result of the new funding formula. Can he confirm that
that is in real terms and not just in cash terms? His
party’s manifesto promised £4 billion of additional money;
£650 million of that was to be obtained by scrapping infant
school meals. The Minister in the other place has said that
that policy has now been scrapped, so where will that money
come from? Is it still the Government’s intention to
provide universal free breakfast in primary schools—and, if
so, does he now have a proper costing of that manifesto
offer? Furthermore, is the Government planning to fund new
and expanded grammar schools, or has that also been
abandoned?
-
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his questions. To be
clear, first of all, on grammar schools, as the noble Lord
will know there is no education Bill in the Queen’s Speech
and the ban will remain in place, although we will keep
working with the Grammar School Heads’ Association and good
grammar schools to see how their excellent practice can be
spread more widely.
As far as breakfast is concerned, we do not plan to
introduce free breakfasts, although we will continue to
work on a number of schemes for breakfast clubs, such as
Magic Breakfast.
There has been a lot of talk about the expansion of class
sizes. Despite the fact that, by this September, schools
will already have experienced an increase of more than 3%
in their cost base, the actual increase in class sizes in
the last six years has been very marginal indeed. This is
at a time when we have got 1.8 million more pupils in good
and outstanding schools and have created nearly 750,000 new
places. I have already said that there will be no cuts in
per-pupil funding as a result of the national funding
formula. We will be responding in full to the consultation
shortly and I am afraid that the noble Lord will have to
wait until then for the answers to the rest of his
questions.
-
(LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his Statement.
He is right to say that funding is anachronistic in
England. I was pleased to hear that there will be no cuts
to any school budgets. Presumably with the fair funding
system there would be winners and losers, so he is clearly
saying that the losers—in other words, those whose budgets
will not go up—will not be cut at all. However, there is a
problem now. When I asked an Oral Question back in March, I
pointed out that audit figures showed that, on average,
over the next four years, every primary school will be
£74,000 worse off and every secondary school will be
£291,000 worse off. In his reply, the Minister said it was
about organising things differently and that better
deployment of staff, efficiency savings and redeployment of
non-teaching staff in schools could save £1 billion. He has
never said how and where that is going to happen.
My main question is in regard to sixth-form colleges. The
Minister believes in fair funding for all secondary and
primary schools, but he clearly does not believe in it for
sixth-form colleges—because only those which have become
academies are VAT exempt. Those that choose to remain
maintained have to pay VAT. That is surely grossly unfair.
Why is the Minister not prepared to allow the same
advantage to all sixth-form colleges? If he did, it would
mean an immediate amount of money for the maintained ones.
At the same time, why has the full amount of funding for
sixth-form colleges—£200 million—been held back? That could
be released to them as well.
-
I am grateful to the noble Lord for recognising that we
have been the first Government for some time to grasp the
issue of the anachronistic state of school funding. It was
never going to be easy —that is quite obvious from the
debates we have had. However, we are determined to press on
and make school funding fair. As I have said, there will be
no cuts per pupil as a result of the national funding
formula.
I would invite the noble Lord to come into the department
and see the extensive work we are doing on school
efficiency and organisation to make sure that schools fully
understand how to make the resources available in a more
efficient way so that there are many more resources for the
front line. I recognise the pressures that schools are
facing, but it is a fact that under the Labour Government
schools received a 5.1% per annum increase in their funding
in real terms and that during that time we slumped down the
international league tables in the performance of our
schools. So it is not just about money; it is about the
efficient deployment of resources.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has been insistent on fairness in
both the Statement and in what he has just said. I am sure
that he is familiar with the work of the Education Policy
Institute, which said in a recent report that:
“The most disadvantaged primary and secondary schools in
London are expected to see an overall loss of around £16.1
million by 2019-20 ... In addition, the distribution of
funding based on area deprivation … shows that pupils who
live in the least deprived areas experience the highest
relative gains”.
What is fair about that?
-
The noble Baroness refers to the Education Policy
Institute, with which I am very familiar as I attended its
one-year anniversary event only a couple of weeks ago. It
is a very excellent organisation, ably chaired by my
ex-colleague . As I have said, we are
determined to make the funding formula fair. As the noble
Lord, , said, it is clear from
what we have said that we have looked at the issue of
losers. We will redress that in the fact that no school
will have its budget cut on a per-pupil basis as a result
of these changes. Certainly, as part of the
consultation—the 25,000 responses we have had—the point
made by the noble Baroness has been made.
-
(CB)
My Lords, the Minister probably shares the concern of other
noble Lords about the number of teachers who are leaving
the profession prematurely—especially young teachers, some
of whom have told me recently about the unbearable
pressures and stress that they have had to endure, which is
why they are pulling out of teaching. Given the great cost
involved in training teachers to work in our classrooms,
does the noble Lord share that concern? Can he tell us how
many teachers have left the profession over the course of
the last 12 months?
-
I completely share the noble Lord’s concern about teacher
retention. In fact, the news recently has been quite good. I
will write to him with precise details but we are seeing more
multiacademy trusts having much better teacher retention
programmes because they have much better career development
programmes for their teachers. I think it was the case until
quite recently that a young teacher coming into the
profession could look forward to perhaps becoming a head in
about 20 years, but it was very difficult to have any visible
career structure in the meantime. As a result of schools
coming together in teaching school alliances and multiacademy
trusts, teachers can now look forward to perhaps being head
of a subject in their mid-20s and even being head of a
primary school in their late 20s or 30s. There is a much
clearer teacher hierarchy and career development structure,
which bodes well for teacher retention in the future. It is
also fair to say that we have a much more fluid workforce,
and in many professions people leave their chosen line of
work and change jobs.
-
(Con)
My Lords, due to changes in universal credit, local
authorities are no longer routinely advising schools on which
students are entitled to pupil premium and free school meals.
That means that head teachers are having to contact the local
authority to find out this information for themselves, if
parents are not able to do so or are unaware that they need
to give the information. Therefore, some schools in very
disadvantaged areas are losing quite significant sums of
money. Can the Minister say how the Government can help to
ensure that local authorities are carrying out this duty
diligently and are not charging for what was originally free?
-
My noble friend makes an extremely good point. That point has
been brought to my attention and we are looking at it. I will
write to her with some further thoughts on this.
|