UKH

Yet again we hear on the morning news that the government denies school funding is too low, that it's the highest it's ever been, that the new system is fair and they don't know why anyone is complaining....

....then I get to work and discover we are losing at least £170,000 in funding this coming year. That we can't afford to replace two outgoing members of staff. That maternity cover is having to be dealt with 'internally' (cover supervisors and HLTA's teaching GCSE subjects for a term!). That we can't afford to employ an attendance officer any more, yet attendance has to be improved upon as OFSTED say so. That we are going to be making TAs redundant despite being told to improve our SEN provision.

So, government, tell me again how it's all ok?!

In reply to Bimble:

What's an 'attendance officer'?

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Exactly what it sounds like, the person who goes out and rounds up kids who should be in school and aren't. Schools get judge on attendance by the govt.

In reply to TobyA:

Did they have them back in the 80s or is this a modern phenomena?

In reply to Bimble:
I thought the new funding formula wasn't coming in until 2018-19, after a consultation period? (Source - The Guardian)

In reply to TobyA:
Seriously!? There are people who have that as a full time job?

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Is it an EWO?

In reply to mrphilipoldham:


Yes they did.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:
'Wag man' was our local term.

In reply to Bimble:

We are being rinsed so that they can show that the state system isn't working. We can't recruit enough teachers, we can't retain enough teachers, many good and outstanding schools are now RI or in SM. Obviously the only way to sort this mess out is to make all schools free agents, with the ability to let anyone they like teach. Not qualified? Doesn't matter. Want to run a school but have only worked in admin? No problem if your uncle is in charge of the MAT. Finding it difficult to find trained teachers? No problem, we'll let corrupt MAT schools train their own staff and award QTS to staff who have barely set foot in a classroom. This is a scandal.

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

I do seem to recall there being someone (though I was usually 100% attendance so no dealings with..) but they certainly weren't employed on a per school basis. Maybe one or two for the whole LEA?!

In reply to Morty:
Apparently the biggest financial pressures on schools (besides having to make savings) are inflation, employers pension contributions and staff wages.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:
Cuts to council funding have led to many council run services being reduced. Individual schools buy in services like EWOs, who will work part time for several schools resulting in a full time job.

In reply to baron:


You'd imagine that these would be the key factors to establish a funding formula for schools. How can they be pressures?

I think that says it all.

In reply to baron:


Individual schools only buy them in because they have been turned into academies. They used to be a part of the LEA and it was their remit to service the schools in their area. Schools have been forced to join MATs or become academies and as a result many LEAs have been destroyed. Schools are buying in the services of former LEA EWOs. However, now the budget of the schools is not wholly spent on staffing etc, as much of it is creamed off to line the pockets of the MAT executives. It is a disgrace.

In reply to baron:

Interesting. Though after Googling and finding a full time position available with one school at circa £16k p/a.. surely split between several schools, even with cuts, it's barely a drop in the ocean for the important job they do? (Admittedly said with tongue in cheek)

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Kids that don't attend school regularly are a high risk catergory for getting into criminal behaviour. It costs a lot more to have a kid in a secure unit than it does to keep them in school. It does make financial sense to chase them into school.

In reply to marsbar:

I don't doubt that in the slightest, just found it alarming that seemingly every school had a dedicated member of staff to 'promote good attendance' as was the headline on one job offering.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Ours also does other stuff as well, everything from admin to helping looking after the sick children.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Why wouldn't they?

There's naff all point in employing anybody else at the school if you can't start by getting the kids to attend.

In reply to Morty:
While lining the pockets of academy trust executives is deplorable, the freedom for schools to buy in the services they want as opposed to having to depend upon the local education authority offerings can be an advantage.
As in when you employ an attendance officer or a careers advisor to meet the specific needs of your school and not as part of some generic package.

In reply to Luke90:

I didn't realise truancy was such a problem, or school optional.

In reply to MG:


youtube.com/watch?v=zUnhfvGdmmw&

In reply to Big Ger:


Good old Michael Gove!

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

For the schools I've worked in, you don't get significant numbers of kids simply "bunking off" altogether for weeks at a time. What you do get is a lot of kids missing a lot of odd days here and there which adds up to significant disruption to their education.

Obviously, school isn't optional but simply putting that into law doesn't make it happen, you need people to enforce the rules. I don't know how you imagine things would function if nobody made any effort to support and enforce school attendance.

In reply to baron:

Alternatively, LEAs have historically been able to provide more specialist skills and do so more efficiently, because they are doing so for a dozen secondary schools.

In reply to The New NickB:
While this should and in some cases might be true there was such a large amount of wastage in parts of many LEAs that introducing competition provides schools with all the expertise they need while reducing the council's costs.
It's a bummer for those made redundant or forced into working harder but taxpayer's money is saved and often the service is improved.

In reply to Bimble:
At my school, I'm deputy head, our numbers have risen since the last census (albeit by a handful - we are a very small school), our staff costs have risen ( incremental pay increases for younger staff members - the head and I haven't had any increase - and pension) and our pupil premium has decreased significantly. Our overall income is significantly lower and costs significantly higher for 2017/18 than this year. It's real and frustrates the hell out of us to be told we've never had it so good.

In reply to The New NickB:


Have a like.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

It's the rise in NI contributions that's conspiring to send us under too. Not to mention the PP funding as you say, yet we are being told by SLT to 'positively discriminate' in favour of PP with regard to marking, feedback & allocation of resources (more OFSTED readying nonsense).

We aren't a big school, with around 700 kids including 6th form, but with current and projected funding levels it just seems impossible. A nearby-ish school has gone down to a 4-day week as they just cannot afford to stay open any more than that. It's being told that everything is fine in the face of that which really galls.

With regard to the attendance officer posts above, it's a massively important job. It's not just about statistics, it's about having someone in place to make sure that any child who doesn't attend is accounted for and safe. I'm sure if a child hasn't come in & there hasn't been a call from home, having someone in place to find out where they are is vastly preferable to that child having set off from home, not arriving at school having been picked up by someone against their will and the alarm not being raised until 8hrs or so later. It's basic safeguarding, and it's more than worth the paltry £8k a year our previous attendance officer was paid.

Back to the original topic, I've not got a clue how to deal with it. Dare to protest against it all? Go on strike in desperation? You are suddenly the selfish ones who are in the wrong & jeopardising students' education. I don't think I'm the only one there looking to get out before it's too late, but into what I don't know.

In reply to Bimble:

I wish I could pay my taxes the same way the government funds some stuff.

Have you all seen the Darth Vader ousted visit?

youtube.com/watch?v=FDkpqKL4DSg&

Cheers

Toby

In reply to Bimble:
While your despair at the current situation is understandable, education has received increases in funding over the last twenty years that has changed schools for the better in many ways.
However, schools did exist before money was available for proper buildings, teaching assistants, learning mentors, cover supervisors, breakfast clubs, etc.
This is not a wish to see a return to the old days nor an attempt to decry the present teaching profession nor to deny that schools are suffering funding cuts but an attempt to put the situation in an historical context.
If a school can't open five days a week then there's something going on there that is far beyond cuts in funding!

In reply to Bimble:

Instinct tells me that the govt is going to back down on this one due to backbencher kicking up a fuss over it . My local comp in a Tory seat is looking at £250k of cuts. This has caused widespread anger in a leafy suburb and lots of campaigning.

Let us see what happens.

In reply to neilh: If I had an interest in one of the many schools that was going to gain from funding changes I might be upset if the government changes its mind.
I don't remember many city based schools moaning when they received more than the rural based ones.
Now that situation is about to be reversed shouts of 'unfair' are heard.
The idea that to make the funding situation fair all schools should be funded at the London level is a wonderful idea but fanciful given the country's financial situation.

In reply to Bimble:

We pay £100 per child per month to support our children's school (I have three children). Most parents do. Those that don't genuinely can't afford it and before any of the Nastys (sic) start, these are parents who do not go on foreign holidays, drive new cars and have Sky Sports. In fact it generates a significant feeling of inadequacy and a fair amount of distress that they feel they can't support the school like other parents. Many schools locally are also asking parents for significant contributions that not all can afford. I suspect there will, over time, emerge significant social stigma (and perhaps even segregation) as a result of this 'back door' policy.

It makes me very sad (and not a little angry) that this Government cares so little for social equality.

In reply to Luke90:

Parental responsibility I guess. Perhaps I'm too trusting.

In reply to Toccata:
The parents voted them in. If you don't make them realise that this isn't acceptable they will just continue the lies. Its exactly the same lies as the NHS.. yes funding is increasing but not always faster than inflation (let alone the true inflation measure for the area). More importantly they forget to say costs are usually increasing even more, such that the money nearly all state schools can spend is reduced. The costs are often austerity driven (esp pension increases). In terms of overall national expenditure the real measure should be the percentage of GDP spent on such important areas, where for schools and the NHS we are falling behind and the benefits go increasingly to the rich.

In reply to baron:

Our area is one of the worst in terms of pupil funding- Warrington.it s been an ongoing issue for years. I would hardly classify it as a rural area.

I am not sure it justifies funding at London levels. Clearly costs are not the same.

And it's is also interesting that Trafford has also instigated cut backs, Trafford being an area where they have selective schools, with some of the country's top grammar schools. Not that I am in favour of grammar schools.

In reply to baron:


We will have to agree to disagree. This is not my experience. My experience is that the EWO and careers advisor that we used when we were attached to the LEA are the same people that we use now. They were removed from their LEA roles due to cuts and now they freelance to the schools that they always have - except now these schools are academies. It is the same for cleaning staff, canteen staff and grounds crew.

In reply to Morty:
While your school employs the same people it now has, or should have,direct control over them and the service that they provide. If you're not happy with them you can do something about it.
Before you probably paid into an LEA package and hoped that your EWO, careers advisor, etc was up to scratch.

In reply to baron:

I understand the concept.

In reply to Morty: I'm guessing the reality is different?

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Responsible parents are great but I don't think schools should let children compromise their education if they're unfortunate enough to be born to parents who aren't.

In reply to baron:


No, it is ENTIRELY to do with cuts in funding. There is simply not enough money being allocated to run schools properly. That's a fact, and it's coming up to breaking point.

In reply to Bimble:
What % of its budget does a school lose to give up 20% of its teaching time?

In reply to baron:

I doubt there's any provision in the funding formula for that. I don't know the details but they might not be sacrificing 20% of the teaching time anyway, they could be four longer-than-standard days.

In reply to Luke90:
Indeed.
I was just interested as to how parents would feel about having their children home for an extra day per week and what the teachers thought of an extra day off?

In reply to baron:
I think the 20% pay cut the teachers will be getting will be the main concern, not what to do with a 3-day weekend.

With regards to the parents, I live in a massively Tory area. This might bring home that they'll reap what they sow for voting for the bastards.

In reply to Bimble:
If you cut teacher's pay (which makes up the majority of most scholl's budgets) by 20% you'll probably end up with a surplus of money.
More pay for the academy executives I presume.
It is an academy, isn't it?

In reply to baron:


Why should we have our pay cut by 20%? We have already endured a 15%+ cut in real terms over the last 8 years due to zero or 1% rises per year. The projected underfunding will cut teacher numbers at a time when pupil numbers are increasing. Since when has bigger class sizes meant more pupil progress?

Andy F

In reply to Morty:

That's TLA* overload.



*Three Letter Acronym

In reply to andy farnell:

I didn't say that teacher's pay should be cut by 20%.
I was responding to another poster who said a school had cut their working week to 4 days and that consequently the teachers at that school would lose 20% of their wages.
I said that when this happened the school would save a large ( 20% ) of its budget which would, according to another poster, probably go to line the pockets of academy executives.

In reply to baron:

It is an academy, the same as my school is, but we aren't part of academy chains or suffering any of that executive nonsense. The only difference between my school and a non-academy is that the government sends us our funding directly rather than via the LEA as it would have done pre-academisation.
Our governors do have slightly more say too, but we they don't profit from their work at all. The only place the 20% pay savings would go is towards attempting to balance the books and avoid budget deficits, all while somehow attempting to offer the standard of education every child in this country is entitled to and damned well deserves to get, no matter how rich or poor their parents are.

In reply to Bimble:


Amen to that.