| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4 Nov 2009 : Column 293WH—continued
Pupil Funding (Haringey)
4 pm
Lynne Featherstone (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD): I am extremely grateful to have secured this important debate, the outcome of which is so vital to children in Haringey, and I am delighted to appear before you this afternoon, Mr. Cummings.
What is the extent of the problem that I have brought here today? In Haringey schools, children get nearly £1,200 less per head-per head-than children in neighbouring boroughs such as Hackney, Islington and Camden. The differential is partly caused by having to pay inner-London pay scales, which are higher, but receiving only outer-London per pupil funding, which is lower, yet Haringey shares its character mainly and most closely with Camden, Islington and Hackney. It faces the same kinds of challenges and costs, yet those boroughs get inner-London per pupil funding to meet their needs, but Haringey does not. Why? How is that fair, when the challenges are so similar? Our teachers rightly deserve the inner-London pay scale, but Haringey also deserves the inner-London per pupil funding.
When I brought the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's questions, he agreed that there was an anomaly that needed to be looked at, but that was before the last funding review, when our children were, on average, only £736 adrift. The gap worsened to more than £1,000 after the last review, which changed nothing for Haringey.
Many local authorities could make a similar argument and say that their funding is less than their neighbour's. In fact, Haringey receives, on average, £845 more per pupil than the Minister's constituency of Kingston upon Hull, North, so no doubt the Minister could make an argument about unfairness, but that is not the argument I am making. This is not a crude argument about them getting more than us, or more than me. All hon. Members could no doubt make a good case for better funding for their schools.
This debate has been requested because the structural problem in school funding budgets means that Haringey schools do not receive funding that reflects their needs, and that is having an impact on children's education in both the east and west of the borough. It is a historical problem: it is a legacy from Greater London council days, when Haringey was divided into two education authorities, inner and outer London.
Even under the area cost adjustment, which is a measure aimed at ending unfair school funding disparity, Haringey loses out. The ACA formula is supposed to give more funding to areas that have higher labour costs, but it has not been used to help Haringey, even though Haringey has the same ACA factor as Enfield, which pays outer-London staff rates. Bizarrely and inexplicably, boroughs such as Kingston and Richmond upon Thames, which also pay outer-London staff rates, still get 7 per cent. more from the ACA than Haringey.
In 2007, Haringey was ranked as the fifth most deprived London borough by the Government, yet it was 15th of the 33 boroughs receiving the highest level of per pupil funding. Everyone agrees that education is the key to addressing deprivation, yet even if we look at the most generous interpretation of the differences, compared with the 10 inner-London boroughs, Haringey
received £757 less than the average in 2008-09. This year, the gap increased to £800, and next year it will grow further to £846. That is if one takes the most generous view of the situation.
If we move away from averages and look at direct comparators with the neighbours who are most like us, we find that in 2008, Haringey received £1,183 less per pupil than Hackney. This year, it will receive £1,248 less, and next year the gap will grow to £1,318. Those are not normal gaps. I have heard many Members discuss differentials in their area, but I have never heard of any in that league.
If Haringey had received the same funding as Hackney, which, as I said, is a borough with similar demographic and educational challenges, its schools would be £39.8 million richer this year. Indeed, based on official growth figures for 2008-11, Haringey schools would be approximately £120 million better off if they received the same funding as Hackney. Per pupil, we get £4,987. Neighbouring authorities get more: Hackney, £6,170; Camden, which is even more like Haringey, £6,161; and Islington, which is still more like Haringey, £5,812. Add the ACA, and each Hackney child gets 24 per cent. more funds than a Haringey child.
What a huge difference it would make if we had fairer funding. We would be looking at 15 extra teachers in each of our 66 schools. Haringey currently has 1,500 teachers; the £39 million differential would deliver 1,021 more teachers. That is a staggering difference, and what a difference it would make to our children.
What is the effect on Haringey of this problem? Because of the legacy from GLC days, Haringey teachers are paid at inner-London rates, and I support their receiving more. They face many of the high costs that merit higher funding-not just because of the challenges in Haringey but, most important, the high housing costs.
Comparing the Government pay scale for inner and outer London, inner-London teachers are paid, on average, 4.5 per cent. more than their outer-London counterparts. At the top end of the scale, that means that a head teacher will cost £4,018 more in basic salary terms, and even more when national insurance and pension contributions are included. Haringey reported that in 2008-09 it employed 1,500 teachers. From Department for Children, Schools and Families figures in 2006, the average salary for a Haringey teacher was £38,950, or £1,330 more than the London average.
If we use a specific example and make a comparison with Enfield, a neighbouring borough to the north, in 2006, the average Enfield teacher cost £36,480-£2,470 less than Haringey, or 6.8 per cent. On a rough calculation, Haringey has to spend £3.7 million more than Enfield on teachers, but that factor is not taken into account in the current funding structure. That is a significant sum in itself, but the real harm is done by the recognition that the Government give to Haringey as an area of need. They count it as inner London when it comes to staff costs, but not when it comes to per pupil funding.
Without doubt, Haringey's teachers need and deserve the higher rate of pay, and I trust that the Minister would not for a moment consider that the answer is to take away their inner-London pay rate. The real answer
is to give Haringey inner-London per pupil funding, and I am sure she knows that that is the only fair way to meet the needs of children's education in Haringey.
There is real evidence of the impact that the lower level of funding is having. For example, information obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) under the Freedom of Information Act put Haringey as the London borough with the highest number of schools-27, or almost one third of all our schools-predicted to end the year in deficit.
I have been engaging with local teachers and parents and the unions on this topic. I have encouraged them to describe the effect of the funding shortfall, and I would like to quote a few of the responses. I was copied into a letter to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills from a board of governors in my constituency. It states:
"If Haringey was fairly funded, our school could afford to provide more books, more equipment, more resources, more computers, our classrooms would not leak when it rains, the list is endless."
That is from Rokesly infant and junior school's governing body.
This is from the chair of the governors of Earlsmead primary school:
"The wards we serve are among the most deprived in the country, with high unemployment, poor housing stock, temporary accommodation and unusually high levels of pupil mobility. We are rightly proud of the achievements of our pupils and staff but we could offer so much more for these young people and their families if we had fair funding."
I received an e-mail from someone who was in the health part of a child protection team in Haringey. She said that Fortismere school in Muswell Hill had to cut its truancy monitoring officer in 2007-08, and hence children who were truanting were missed, which was a great concern in relation to the protection of vulnerable children. That health consultant/paediatrician said that children who miss school may be absent for a variety of problems, including learning difficulties, bullying, problems at home and emotional difficulties, but if the school does not even realise that they are missing or absent, those difficulties cannot be caught, addressed and picked up in time. The failure of monitoring was blamed on financial pressures by the school, which said, when approached about it, that it had to cut that post.
The head of Woodside high school in Hornsey and Wood Green was quoted in The Guardian in September, saying that to stave off a deficit, she had not replaced members of staff this year, including a deputy head, but that even so she is still facing a shortfall of £500,000 next year.
Local teachers have achieved a fantastic amount in raising standards in our borough and they are to be applauded for their achievement in the face of such funding adversity. They rightly deserve inner-London pay scales and they work miracles against one of the most difficult, demanding backdrops. Nevertheless, Haringey performs significantly below the national average. I have no doubt that that gap could have been narrowed by our brilliant teachers if the funding gap had been reduced.
In 2008, 59.7 per cent. of Haringey pupils received five or more A to C GCSEs, compared with a London average of 65 per cent. Other indices show that Haringey is falling behind national trends. In 2007, primary class
sizes were larger than the London or national averages and, where national trends showed falling class sizes, in Haringey they rose. University uptake has increased at well below the London average, at 1.7 per cent, compared with 6.7 per cent. across the capital.
What is the solution? Each time I mention unfair funding in Haringey, Ministers answer by pointing to the dedicated school grant area review, which is currently taking place. However, we urgently need interim arrangements. With each passing day, Haringey schools are £109,778.21 worse off compared with Hackney. That differential is there every single day. The scale of the underfunding is so large that I urge the Government not to wait until September 2011, when the review will be implemented. I would like the Minister to commit to emergency funding for 2010-11, so that our schools do not fall further behind.
I have been encouraging all local stakeholders to take part in the dedicated school grant area review, in the hope that our voices will be heard and we will not be ignored. Can the Minister give categorical assurance that Haringey will be in a better financial position at the end of the review? I ask because that was not so at the end of the last review, and thus far I have not succeeded in getting such an assurance from the Government.
A review was announced in July 2005 for the current 2008-11 funding arrangement, so despite the need level we were ignored last time and our situation worsened, as I have said, from a £736 differential to one of well over £1,000. In a written statement to the House in July 2005, the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills pledged that as part of that review the Government would
"replace the existing distribution methodology with a fairer formula".-[Official Report, 21 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 136WS.]
However, in this 2008-11 period Haringey's per pupil funding only increased at 12 per cent.-below the national average of 13.1 per cent. and a London average of 13 per cent. To us, that is evidence of the previous review's failing to address the specific issues that affect fairer funding for Haringey. Although Haringey was only 1 per cent. and 1.1 per cent. behind those other averages, it started from such an unfair base that we were not getting closer, but moving further apart.
Having a representative from Haringey on the review board would have been one positive way to give us some reassurance about the review's work. I have written on numerous occasions to, and raised the matter directly twice with, the former Schools Minister, but, sadly, my request for Haringey to be represented has been refused. I ask the Minister to reconsider that request, given that Haringey is a special case. I also find it strange that the one representative body not included on the review panel is the National Union of Teachers.
I assure the Minister that this is a cross-party issue. Although I speak as the Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Hornsey and Wood Green, the issue and the campaign are supported by the Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), the Labour leadership on Haringey council, the Liberal Democrat council group, obviously, as well as countless teachers, governors, heads and Haringey NUT, which is here today-and, of course, parents of children at schools in the borough.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister four definitive questions. First, although the Government clearly recognise the high level of need and the challenges in Haringey and direct it to pay our school teachers at the higher inner-London rate, why do they not award them the inner-London per pupil funding? I have never understood why we are considered needy when it comes to teachers but not needy in respect of funding. Secondly, why do the Government not apply the area cost adjustment to Haringey fairly to adjust the unfair funding situation we have found ourselves in?
Thirdly, although the Minister will undoubtedly say that she cannot prejudge the findings of the dedicated school grant review, given that this unfair funding has gone on for some years and civil servants have clearly not seen fit to do anything about rectifying the situation, and may once again fail to address it in the current DSGR, as happened with the last review, I ask the Minister to put on the record today the case that she will make to the review for Haringey to get fair funding. I am asking for her to make our case for us, as a special case, and asking how she will do so, since we are not to have a representative on the review.
Fourthly, and lastly, the review will not report until late 2010 and its findings will not be implemented until 2011. By then, Haringey will have more problems and more schools in deficit than anywhere else in London. Given that this unfair funding is now clearly causing real damage, will the Minister commit to making an interim bridging fund of £1,000 per Haringey child until the funding anomaly is corrected in the review?
I look forward to the Minister's answering those four simple questions.
4.17 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.26 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Ms Diana R. Johnson): I hope that my response will cover the four questions that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) asked at the end of her contribution. I congratulate her on securing this debate. She has raised the topic several times, and my Department takes it seriously.
It is essential that every school receives sufficient funding not just to ensure that their pupils receive the necessary support to learn, but to give teachers the correct amount of pay for their services. I want to ensure that all schools receive the right funding for their circumstances, including Haringey. As the hon. Lady knows, the matter has been the subject of much correspondence, and a question to the Prime Minister. It has resulted in strong lobbying from her, the Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), and the leader of Haringey council, Councillor Claire Kober. My right hon. Friend has requested a meeting with me, to which I have agreed, and the hon. Lady's debate today provides a further platform for this important issue.
On school funding, I want to emphasise the unprecedented amount of investment that the Government have put into schools to address decades of under-investment. Between 1997 and 2010, national revenue funding was increased by £2,410 per pupil, from £1,808 to £4,218 in 2010. We are continuing to ensure that that investment is built on to provide schools with the correct funding for their pupils and staff. That is why we introduced the dedicated schools grant in 2006, which changed how each local authority is funded for the schools in their area. That amount was calculated by the spend plus model, which took the per pupil spend by each local authority in 2005-06, and applied an increase to it. The model was used again in 2006-07 and 2007-08, and it has provided stable and predictable funding levels for all local authorities. That is why, following significant consultation, it continued to be the model from 2008 and will be until 2011.
The fact that Haringey receives money for outer-London weighting but must pay its teachers inner-London weighting puts it in a difficult position. The issue is not new, as the hon. Lady said. Haringey has paid inner-London weighting for teachers since the 1970s, and its current funding levels reflect how much it was spending in 2005-06. The significant changes in the way that local government is funded have ensured that Haringey receives substantial funding support. Its funding will continue to rise and, by 2011, will have increased by 12 per cent. from 2008-from £4,987 to £5,364 per pupil in 2010-11. However, we recognise that with that increased funding we need to ensure that there is still a focus on pupil characteristics and their needs. We want to reach a funding formula that distributes funding based on the need of each school and local authority, rather than on historical spend. That is why we are undertaking a review of how the dedicated schools grant is distributed.
A key issue that we are considering is the area cost adjustment, which the hon. Lady mentioned. Haringey is one of six London authorities-the others are Barking, Brent, Ealing, Merton and Newham-that pay teachers inner-London pay but are in outer-London ACA bands. We commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers to do extensive research to support the review, and an area that it explored was the ACA. Its research was published in the summer and proposed four options for the ACA: an approach based on the general labour market in each area; an approach based on the cost of living and house prices in particular; an approach based on the specific costs that local authorities and schools face in employing teachers; and a mix of the general labour market and specific cost approach. We are exploring each of those possibilities, but I cannot confirm any choice at this time. There are pros and cons in all approaches and we shall publish our consultation in January, but I want to reassure the hon. Lady that we are bearing in mind the issue of the funding for Haringey when we consider the options.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |