Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40
- 46)
WEDNESDAY 12 JULY 2000
MR PETER
SMITH, MR
NIGEL DE
GRUCHY, MR
JOHN BANGS
AND MISS
KAY DRIVER
40. Do you think that is acceptable and, if
not, what alternative would you suggest?
(Mr Bangs) We have done a lot of work on this area,
Chairman. We commissioned Coopers & Lybrand in 1996 to look
at the funding mechanism from Government to local education authorities.
They came up with a conclusion that—as you imply in your
question—it is ridiculous to have schools in different parts
of the country with different intakes receiving markedly different
amounts of money and that actually what you did need was a funding
mechanism based on the principles of equity of delivery and a
proper and accurate way of identifying additional educational
needs. Their conclusions were that the additional educational
needs aspect of the SSA needed to be reformed and Government needed
to cost its initiatives, which it had not done. In fact, Coopers
& Lybrand repeated that argument in its report on bureaucracy
to the Government and the Government still did not cost the impact
of the start up costs or the on-costs of the impact of its initiative.
We believe that has to be picked up. Where we have some reservations
is the proposal to remove the distribution tier from local education
authorities. It is a very practical argument. Local education
authorities by and large, given the priority on education, actually
add money of their own. We could be in a situation if it is a
straight distribution from Government to individual schools that
actually schools are getting less because local authorities would
not have the ability to cross vire into the education budget.
So they have to be a bit careful on that one. We think a proper
system based on identifying need is necessary.
(Mr de Gruchy) We have no problem at all with the
national formula in outline. For many years we have argued that
schools should be funded on the basis of staffing the national
curriculum. If the national Government legislates that we have
to have this national curriculum we think it is the responsibility
of Government to provide enough money for every school to employ
the required number of teachers to deliver that national curriculum.
We recognise that leads in a way towards some kind of national
funding formula. As John has pointed out, one has to be careful
in practical terms because most local authorities spend above
their education SSA although the trend is unfortunately in the
opposite direction. That is why I was very relieved when the Secretary
of State addressed the NAHT Conference in my native Jersey and
said if the Government was going to change the system it was going
to be on the basis of levelling up to the best. As you rightly
point out, some of the disparities in the pupil funding that emerge
at the end of the day are quite unjustifiable. Certainly we have
long shared the concerns which the review body, amongst other
organisations, have expressed about the funding fog. No-one quite
understands the basis for funding education, in fact some other
local services as well, and, to be critical of both sides, in
the past both central Government and local education authorities
have used that fog to play off one another and one has blamed
the other at various times during the dispute for all sorts of
reasons. They have both played on the system. We would like a
much more transparent system which is understandable and makes
it so the Government accepts responsibility for certain things,
it is up to them to make sure the finance gets through. We also
see a role for local education authorities possibly raising additional
finance through things like council tax to prop up certain aspects
of the education service that they think are particularly important
in their area. That subsidy to local authorities might in turn
be propped up by the Government, particularly obviously in areas
of deprivation they would have a greater need to pay for things
like special needs than perhaps other areas.
Chairman: Michael, do you want to ask anything
else?
Mr Foster
41. To quickly follow that up. Have any recent
representations been made to organisations such as the LGA as
well as Government on your views on a replacement, if you like,
for the Standard Spending Assessment?
(Mr de Gruchy) We are submitting evidence to the Government
review.
Chairman
42. Kay, you want to come in on this?
(Ms Driver) Yes. We take the view that everything
should be funded adequately and on an equal footing for pupils
because it is so unfair to look at these discrepancies. Year on
year schools receive different budgets which make it very difficult
to plan. The problem with small schools, as I emphasised earlier,
is very critical because there is obviously an irreducible minimum
below which you cannot deliver and at present they tend to suffer
disproportionately. I think the other issue on which we would
welcome some action is to ensure that the DfEE does not complicate
the system so much as it does at the moment. We have had meetings
with the DETR to look at the funding formula for schools and to
look at SSA but all the increasing complications are added once
the DfEE starts adding small streams of money and to really cloud
the distribution from the SSAs to the local authority at the school.
We also think the LEA has a wider role in running schools because
schools are answerable to their local community. There is a lot
of pride in schools in the local community and one would not want
to see that lost if the LEA lost its control over funding.
Chairman: Right. Valerie, did you want to come
in on funding?
Valerie Davey
43. Yes, please. Firstly, can I declare my interest
as a member of the NUT. You just touched on LEAs, we could spend
a long time on that. Can you briefly indicate what you think is
the most important future role of the LEAs, leaving aside the
funding, which any local authority could do, as opposed to particularly
a LEA? What is the most important future role of the LEA?
(Mr Smith) I think that defining the role of LEAs
is absolutely crucial. Only once you define the role and set out
with some clarity their responsibilities and duties can you say
if they are performing well, badly or in between. I do not believe,
whether it is a question of more effective funding or more effective
management, that the direct funding of schools, as the Conservatives
currently propose, is a particularly sensible idea. I do not think
there are magic wands in this. I think that any funding formula
has to be national in the sense that it can be defended by whatever
Government is in power as being just, as being equitable, as being
transparent. I do not think SSAs can be justified on that basis
at the moment. Any national funding formula, however, will have
to be sufficiently clear but sufficiently sensitive to take account
of different schools, different sizes in different circumstances.
If you take the business model, running and funding a two to three
teacher primary school in Cumbria, let us say, is a completely
different issue from running a comparable business with seven
or 17 teachers in Tower Hamlets, for the sake of argument, with
entirely different pupil intakes. I do not think there is a simple,
easy formula which can readily be applied and everything in the
garden is lovely. I think an enormous amount of work will have
to go into how, for example, we produce better indices of needs
than free school meals. We know much more about children and young
people than that but we use a very crude, blunt measure.
44. I am trying to look to the future to define
this role. What I would like are any contributions you can make
to that. I agree with you, you are absolutely right, we have to
define it. Can you help in the future definition?
(Mr Bangs) Can I come back to Valerie's question.
I think it is a very important question. The proposal appears
to be a consensus developing that somehow LEAs revert to a minimalist
role, only there to respond when a school is in crisis in school
improvement terms and there just to deal with special educational
needs. I think LEAs, if they are going to survive, have got to
address the needs of teachers, not just headteachers, not just
governing bodies. Actually the most important thing for an LEA,
given the Government's new professional development programmes
coming over the hill, is actually being the oil between schools,
getting teachers to be able to meet each other, to involve themselves
in professional development, breaking down those kind of barriers.
I do have a problem with intervention in inverse proportion to
success. It is a wrong model, it is a wrong conceptual model.
Actually if LEAs are going to be any support at all to schools
they should be there helping teachers in their professional lives,
linking up with each other.
(Ms Driver) In terms of specific policy, the local
authority elected councillors have a responsibility for the provision
in the whole area. They have a planning responsibility, they have
a responsibility for ensuring that all the children in that area
get a good quality of education and are dealing with complaints
from parents and other consumers. Then within that, within the
actual role of the LEA, the major change that has to take place
is a move from the generalist type officer appointment, who may
have a myriad of tasks at the moment but does not know enough
about a lot of things to be of great help to teachers or support
staff in schools and that person in the future I think should
have a much smaller role. We should be looking at much greater
interchange between the profession and the administration. We
should be moving people in and out. Headteachers coming in for
a period of time, other teachers coming in, to lead the development
of services. We need a much tighter, clearer personnel function,
professional development function, by the LEAs. It retains the
employer role but disregards the fact that we will have one officer
who will be doing premises, who will be advising on some other
aspects of school development and will be coming in to assist
when there is a problem of quality of education. Those people's
days have gone but they are still in post across the country.
Chairman
45. Nigel, very briefly.
(Mr de Gruchy) Yes. It is obviously an impossible
question to answer because you cannot answer in isolation. You
can take things like admissions policies, which should fall logically
to an LEA, but there are so many other functions which might or
might not fall which are at least partly covered by other people
in the education circus. There is so much obfuscation and overlap
and confusion of responsibility, first of all between headteachers
and governors and LEAs and central Government itself and OFSTED
as well. I have heard about 30 different ways in which teachers
are held accountable and unless you resolve everyone's role in
the education service and clarify those then I think it is impossible
to pick out one so-called partner and try and define that role
in a simple and clear way when there are so many overlapping roles
which are performed by other organisations and other people.
46. That has been absolutely fantastic. I have
very much enjoyed this, I think the whole Committee has. It is
a first. We have got a lot out of it. Can we thank you for your
attendance and your contribution. I hope you have found it as
valuable as we have. As we have said, we would like to do this
again. I have bitten a little bit into the Headteacher Unions'
time but could we replace the team now.
(Mr de Gruchy) Bring on the subs.
Chairman: I wondered why all these conferences
were in Jersey and now I know.
|
