How is a school defined as ‘poor’ in financial terms? Sam Ellis looks for some facts and figures beyond the budget sheets.

Getting into hot water

There is a haunting song in Peter Weiss’s play Marat/ Sade which contains the line “Marat, we’re poor and the poor stay poor.”

This came to mind when I heard that the Institute for Fiscal Studies had published research which claimed that the impact of the spending review would negatively affect the poor more than the rich. It made me think about what makes a school financially poor.

Arguments go round forever about fair funding distribution and cliff edges between neighbouring schools that happen to be in different LAs. If we are to come up with a fair, activity-led funding model, then I think the distribution of pupil numbers across the years of a school needs to feature.

Consider two schools which are identical in every respect except for the distribution of pupils (table below):

	Lucky Break High	Trouble Ahead Comp
Roll Y7	150	155
Roll Y8	150	140
Roll Y9	150	155
Roll Y10	150	150
Roll Y11	150	150
Roll Y12	90	90
Roll Y13	80	80
Total Roll	920	920
Average Class Size (§ ACS)	21.93	21
Teacher contact ratio (§ c)	0.77	0.77
Average Teacher Cost (§ ATC)	£43,000	£43,000
Revenue funding per pupil (§ £pupil)	£4,900	£4,900

There is a haunting song in Peter Weiss’s play Marat/ Sade which contains the line “Marat, we’re poor and the poor stay poor.”

This came to mind when I heard that the Institute for Fiscal Studies had published research which claimed that the impact of the spending review would negatively affect the poor more than the rich. It made me think about what makes a school financially poor.

Arguments go round forever about fair funding distribution and cliff edges between neighbouring schools that happen to be in different LAs. If we are to come up with a fair, activity-led funding model, then I think the distribution of pupil numbers across the years of a school needs to feature.

Consider two schools which are identical in every respect except for the distribution of pupils (table below):

I applied a very parsimonious curriculum to both schools and set a maximum group size of 30 in Key Stage 3. In Trouble Ahead Comp, years 7 and 9 cross this threshold and additional teaching groups are required. The distribution of numbers in Key Stage 3 and the curriculum change that results are the only differences between these schools.

The shift in average class size between the two schools is 0.93. What does this mean?

We can use the relationship below to investigate the impact on the proportion of the budget a school spends on the teaching staff (p). Other symbols (§) are given in the table above.

p = ATC ÷ (£pupil x ACS x c)

The change from an average class size of 21 to 21.93 represents a budget shift of 2.3 per cent.

This means that Trouble Ahead Comp has to spend about 2.3 per cent more of its revenue expenditure on teaching staff than Lucky Break High. If there is no wriggle room left in the non-teaching areas of the budget, a 2.3 per cent in year imbalance looks serious.

If the pattern persists, Trouble Ahead Comp risks descent into the cold of perpetual debt and Lucky Break High remains balanced. Incremental drift and inflation will not improve the situation. Trouble Ahead Comp is ‘poor’ and, to quote the song again, “the poor stay poor.”

What can Trouble Ahead Comp do? If it moves the contact ratio from 0.77 to 0.79, the in-year deficit would go from 2.3 to 0.9 per cent. However, that could be at the cost of increased staff illness and loss of staff performance in the classroom. Decreases in the in-year deficit could be wiped out through supply costs.

Moving to a curriculum more reminiscent of 1970 would save money but would that help the learners? Loss of post-16 makes no difference in the model I have used, as a change in ACS would be balanced by a change in funding per pupil.

If the teaching budget is already at the limit then would changing it cut the back line in a manner that puts the front line under threat? Do we turn the heating off all year and expect people to work in coats?

There is also the spectre of pupils being taught for 0.9 per cent of the week and supervised for half a day. There are a lot of unanswered questions raised in trying to solve the poverty issue.

Is it the case that every school has limiting values for the variables in the equation and beyond those lie unmanageable poverty? I want to investigate the case for a minimum level of per pupil funding so that schools do not cross a poverty line through no fault of their own. I need data from schools to make that case. Please look at the link on the ASCL website and join in the data collection surveys.

To quote Solzhenitsyn, “How can someone who is warm understand someone who is cold?” Given that we are all in it together I would like to make the case to the Department for Education based on real examples that some schools can end up staying in the cold of poverty through circumstantial factors, such as roll size, which may be beyond their control.

I need data from members to do that, even those whose current position is clearly ‘in the warm’.

• Sam Ellis is ASCL’s funding specialist

 

Designed with IMPACT

© 2024 Association of School and College Leaders | Valid XHTML | Contact us