School Funding

David Mowat Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on leading the charge on this matter. I am not from the south-west and have no real knowledge of Schleswig-Holstein. Warrington is one of the lowest funded of the F40. Periodically, I visit primary and other schools, as we all do, most recently Broomfields in Appleton. Over and over, governors take me to one side, show me spreadsheets and say, “Why does this school in another part of the country, which has the same characteristics as our school, have so much extra money? Can you explain to me, as our MP, why an incoming Government with a Front Bench bristling with talent, energy and reforming zeal, can acknowledge the problem and understand it has to be fixed, yet does not seem to have the appetite to have a go at it?”

Warrington is not a wealthy place. It has wards that are among the most deprived in the country. Over the weekend I looked at many spreadsheets—I congratulate the Department on the volume of spreadsheets on its website—and noticed that there is a 50% discrepancy between the funding level of Warrington and Westminster, where I live during the week. Is Westminster that much worse off than Warrington? Are the deprivation indices that much more difficult? I do not think so.

In preparing for this debate I read a lot of papers on websites and various materials that are around. A lot of words have been written about how difficult it all is, but none of the analyses attempt to justify the status quo. I have seen no serious attempt to say that where we are now is the right place. None of the hon. Members who will speak or have spoken already are asking for a national funding formula to be put in place and implemented immediately. We are asking for a start to be made.

I recognise—perhaps the Minister will address this in his remarks—that it could take 10, 15 or 20 years to fix this in its entirety, but that is all the more reason at least to make a start. That is what I find most difficult to explain to my constituents. I have a suggestion for the Front-Bench spokesman.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that even a modest increase in the budgets of low-funded local education authorities would make a significant difference to the education that could be offered to children?

Picking up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough, Leicestershire is the lowest-funded area in the country. Coalville, the most deprived town in Leicestershire, is in my constituency. Even in the centre of Coalville there is below average take-up for free school meals, so we will not benefit from the pupil premium to the extent that the Government might expect. There are a lot of proud people out there and they are reluctant to take up free school meals because a great stigma is attached to them.

[David Mowat]

I agree. Clearly, every hon. Member has places in their constituencies that are deeply deprived and lose out in this regard.

It is said that it is difficult to put in place a national formula, but I do not think it is. An exercise to decide the inputs to the national formula, indices of deprivation, London weighting and historical issues could take place over a long period. Several things could be done, and I find it difficult to understand why they have not been, because there is a precedent in a national formula for health funding. The way in which all our primary care trusts are funded is driven by the ACRA formula—called after the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation—which appears to work reasonably well. A characteristic of the ACRA formula is that it gives different numbers and numbers that one might not want to adjust to immediately because they are too far up or down in the next year. The Department of Health deals with that with what it calls a direction of travel adjustment—adjustment to the correct number takes place over a number of years. I see no difficulty in the education community doing something similar because, as I said, no one is asking for the problem to be fixed quickly. We want to know that there is a direction of travel and that over the next decade, say, it will be sorted out.

Finally, I very much support our policy and what we are doing with academies and free schools. For me and for people in my constituency on the wrong end of the formula, however, the funding issue is more potent. It is disappointing that our Front Bench is on the same side as the teaching unions, which should give Ministers pause for thought. We are asking not for the problem to be fixed now but for a start to be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to respond to the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing the debate and on the erudite way in which he introduced his argument. When discussing an issue of local government finance, by law it is necessary to invoke the Schleswig-Holstein question, which he wisely did. When looking at education funding and the many complex questions about welfare expenditure and the formulae for allocating funding to local authorities, it is right to reflect on the complexity and difficulty of such issues, which the Government are discovering to their cost.

I understand that many hon. Members today made sincere and heartfelt arguments in defence of their own local communities and about some of the funding discrepancies that occur between local authority areas, reflecting the differences in local authority funding formulae broadly, not just in education, and some of the discrepancies that occur between individual schools in their local communities. A common thread seemed to be an argument for additional spending on education. That is absolutely fine, but it does not quite fit with some of the concern expressed about the record of the Labour Government and the deficit. The fact is that we saw a dramatic increase in investment in education and in schools during those years and we are now seeing a squeeze on schools funding within which some of these difficult issues need to be played out.

It is true, as the hon. Member for Gloucester said, that this is a long-standing issue. It goes back far longer than 20 years. The entire problem of discrepancy that we are grappling with reflects the fact that the education funding formula has a historical root. Allocation to schools and to local authorities was based on an incremental change in existing historical patterns. Then there were changes, many of which were introduced by the Labour Government, to make that system more progressive through the various specific grants that were introduced and to achieve particular ends and outcomes in education through those specific grants. The aim was also to begin the process—it was begun—to try to deal with some of the funding discrepancies through such means as the dedicated schools grant.

Therefore, it would not be fair to say that the Labour Government were not engaged in finding ways of dealing with some of the inexplicable and difficult variations in funding. The then Opposition spokesperson, Baroness Buscombe, reflected that fact when the dedicated schools grant was introduced, saying:

“We welcome the principal policy behind the regulations, the new ring-fenced dedicated schools grant, the multi-year budgets and the rationalisation of standards grants.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 February 2006; Vol. 678, c. 1340.]

Progress was being made.

However, there are tensions in relation to what hon. Members want. All of us wanting to see fairer and more progressive funding need to recognise that there are tensions between those two objectives. It is sometimes difficult to be more progressive and invest money in education outcomes that deal with some of the disadvantages that children have in schools and at the same time have a more equal funding formula that flattens some of the discrepancies to allow schools to have similar levels of funding.

[David Mowat]

Three times now the hon. Lady has used the word “progressive”. Can she explain to us how it is more progressive that Warrington, which has a substantially lower income per head than Westminster, has 50% less funding for its schools? That does not seem progressive to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Buck]

I was about to come to the issue of free school meals. Of course it is difficult to accommodate, as an indicator of deprivation, any element that involves a degree of take-up. All Governments have had to and will continue to grapple with that. Some changes in local government allocations in the funding formulae, which have factored in the index of multiple deprivation and the take-up of tax credits, have proved to be even more difficult, because that variation is even more challenging. Obviously, if we could come up with a deprivation funding formula without dealing with take-up, that would be better. If we could find a way of doing that, I could understand why people would want to do so.

To return to my point, there is a tension between fair funding and progressive funding that we have not managed to resolve. There is also a tension between the core desire to see all schools and all pupils have a basic funding allocation to which a progressive element—a pupil premium or whatever people want to call it—is a relatively small top-up, and the historical desire for local authorities to have a say and for local democracy to be an element in deciding how funding is allocated. In another context, the Conservative party would argue that case quite strongly. One reason why it proved to be such a challenge, not just under the Labour Government but before that, was that local authorities were receiving funding for schools but not passing all that funding on to schools or were making their own decisions about how to share out the grant. Accusations can be levelled at all political parties, in different ways, because of what was done, but of course some of that is intrinsic to local democracy. If we take it out of the equation completely, that throws up other and very difficult questions.

We recognise that school funding is extremely complex, that there is a case for further reform and that that reform is of course far harder to achieve when funding is as tight as it is now. We are seeing the squeeze on school budgets. Even with the pupil premium, funding will fall. At the time of the 2010 spending review, the Department for Education said that total funding for the schools budget would be increased by 0.1% in real terms in each of the following four years. However, subsequent higher projections of economy-wide inflation have changed the real-terms calculation. They indicate, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a real-terms cut over the whole period of about 1% and a small real-terms increase in only one year. Of course, that is at a time when pupil numbers are expected to increase. That gives us an indication of the broader context in which some of these demands have arisen.

To make the position even more complicated for the Government, there is an absolute shambles going on because the Department for Work and Pensions has failed to work out a system whereby the new universal credit can accommodate a proper indicator for school dinners. It is struggling to find a way of doing that. That means that the way of calculating the deprivation indicator is moving even further away from what the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) is saying should be the case. We are, at the moment, at a complete loss to know how the deprivation factor will be properly assessed when it comes to future funding. Both those things—the squeeze on funding and the inability to calculate a future pupil premium, because of the free school meal entitlement shambles—undermine the Government’s case that the problem is so desperate that an immediate solution must be found.

Following the Government’s consultation, the Institute for Fiscal Studies brought out an absolutely damning critique of the Government’s thinking. The report exposes the rather arrogant belief, which we see in so many other areas of public policy, that the problems can be sorted now that we have a Conservative Government, and that the previous Government had, by definition, got everything wrong. When it looked at the small print, however, it found that things were much more difficult.

The report, which I encourage all Members to look at, shows that: the Government’s plans would lead to a large funding transfer from secondary schools to primary schools; the average gains and losses could be 10% or more; one in six schools would face budget losses of 10% or more; there would be huge numbers of winners and losers; and, even over a transitional period lasting six years, some schools would incur annual cash losses of up to 5%. The Secretary of State has therefore started to row back from his enthusiasm for seeing early movement on finding a response.

[David Mowat]

I am sure the IFS’s list of problems, which the hon. Lady has just read out, is correct, but does that not demonstrate the size of the problem that must be fixed? The fact those problems will exist if we move to a fair formula demonstrates how much inequity there is at the moment. However, will the hon. Lady clarify the Opposition’s position on introducing a new funding formula? Would they like us to carry on as we are doing, or would they prefer to see a new formula developed, albeit over time?

[Ms Buck]

As I thought I made clear in my opening remarks, I completely understand that there are arguments about similar schools with similar characteristics receiving different grant funding because of an historical pattern. I am merely pointing out that that was difficult to tackle when we had a generous funding framework, because of the impact on schools and the numbers of winners and losers. If it had been easy to tackle those issues, and there had not been large numbers of winners and losers, much greater progress would have been made, and some of the winners and losers would have been secondary schools in Conservative Members’ constituencies. Now, however, we are in a time of public spending constraint, so most of the challenges are far greater and could be far more damaging for schools, including some in the constituencies represented by Members here, who have made a powerful case, in principle, for having a fairer formula. My critique relates to the fact that the Government are rushing in and saying, “This can all be solved. The previous Government made a complete shambles. We’ll be able to oblige you with a solution,” when they cannot, of course, offer one or answer many of the questions that have been asked.

I want to finish by asking the Minister a few questions. How many winners and losers will there be as a result of the “Next steps” proposals and the Government’s decision to dictate to local areas how they organise their funding? Do the Government propose any modelling or pilots to test their proposals? In the light of what head teachers, collectively, want, why are the Government restricting local formulae to 10 centrally chosen criteria? Why will they not allow some flexibility to reflect differences in local circumstances?

What is the cost of using the Education Funding Agency to administer the budgets of increasing numbers of academies? Can academy chains gather all the funding and distribute it as they see fit, including holding back money for central services? If that is the case, does the Minister propose any restrictions? Is he taking any steps to monitor salaries in academy chains? Obviously, top pay will impact on the money spent on pupils.

How will the introduction of universal credit affect the Department’s thinking on free school meals and the pupil premium? The Department acknowledged it will cause “turbulence”. What exactly did that mean? Is free school funding per pupil per actual pupil or per notional pupil? Finally, will the Minister confirm that, as a result of the Government’s botched efforts, there will be no major overhaul of school funding during this Parliament?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

In 2013, those issues will be made public, so if some schools forums are redistributing the pupil premium in a way that was not intended, it will become clear and apparent.

[David Mowat]

Are the 10 factors, which the Minister has read out, that are to be used within a local authority to achieve a fair allocation potentially the basis for a national funding formula by which the money would get to the local authorities in the first place, which is the nub of the problem?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. Those are the very issues on which we are consulting, in moving to a national formula. We must move away from the phenomenally complicated formulae that currently apply in allocating funds to local authorities.

To ensure that we are better placed to introduce a national funding formula over the coming years, we are also making changes that will substantially improve how local authorities are funded. They will continue to be allocated amounts for each pupil through the dedicated schools grant based on previous funding levels. The difference will be that that grant will be allocated in three notional blocks: for schools, early years and high-needs pupils. The notional blocks will not be ring-fenced, so local authorities will continue to have flexibility over how they spend their money. That approach will benefit pupils and schools from all sectors and phases.

We will use the October census, rather than the January census as we do now, to calculate budgets for the schools block. Therefore, mainstream maintained schools will receive their budgets earlier, giving them more time to plan. The separate high-needs block will help to secure a more transparent and sustainable approach to funding pupils with high needs. Schools and other providers will be expected to contribute to the costs of a pupil with high needs, up to a clearly defined threshold. Any cost above that threshold will need to be met from the high-needs block. That will ensure that funding for high-needs pupils is funded in an equivalent way, whatever type of institution they attend, and it will improve consistency when young people move from one part of the country to another. The early years block will continue to be funded on the basis of the January census, but that funding will be adjusted to reflect actual numbers by the end of the financial year, to take into account the fact that young children join the school system at different points in the year. It will ensure that local authorities have greater certainty about funding for early years children.

We are aware that we need to reform the administration of the local authority central spend equivalent grant, which is very dear to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, so that there is greater comparability and transparency. We are exploring a new Department for Education grant that would substitute an element of the formula grant that is currently paid by the Department for Communities and Local Government. The new grant would cover relevant central educational services and be paid on a national basis, per pupil, to local authorities and academies. That, combined with the maximum devolution of funding to schools, would replace the need for LACSEG. Making the local system simpler and more transparent will mean that, when we come to address the national system, there will be far less complexity for us to untangle. This is the start of the process for which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South calls.

I am aware of the concerns covered in the opening remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, including those about small schools, which were also discussed by other hon. Members during the debate. We have considered the additional needs of small rural schools in developing the new funding arrangements. As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) pointed out, very small schools are very expensive. We have built enough flexibility into the proposed system to allow local authorities and schools forums to support successful small schools—for example, through the lump sum that I referred to earlier.

In the remaining period of the spending review, schools are being funded at flat cash per pupil, in addition to which schools receive £600 per pupil eligible for free school meals. However, to support our proposed changes and to protect all schools, including small schools, from significant locally decided fluctuations in their budgets, we will continue to operate a minimum funding guarantee of minus 1.5% per pupil for 2013-14 and 2014-15. Therefore, in most circumstances, schools across the country can be assured that, over the next two years, their budgets will not be reduced by more than 1.5% per pupil each year.

Our analysis has shown that those measures will protect the majority of small schools. However, we are consulting on the issues and listening to all the sector’s concerns. Formal decisions on protection for small schools and, indeed, other areas of reform will be announced in the summer.