SUMMARY OF REPORT

Government funding claims do not match reality or “If I ran this school as Tony Blair runs education, we would be in special measures”

More than half of primary schools and nearly two-thirds of secondary schools received budget settlements in 2003-4 that were worse than the previous year. Nearly a quarter of primary schools and a third of secondary schools cut staffing as a result.

This led to the loss of 8,800 teaching posts and 12,300 non-teaching staff in schools in England and Wales. 4,920 primary schools cut back 5,502 teaching posts and 1,970 secondary schools cut back 3,115 teaching posts.

Only one in ten schools received settlements that were higher despite Government claims of a 6.7 per cent increase rising to 11.6 per cent when specific grants from the Standards Fund are included. 19 per cent of primary schools and 29 per cent of secondary schools said they would have to set deficit budgets.

The Government insisted that lower settlements were due to falling pupil numbers, yet falling rolls affected less than a third of primary schools and only 11.7 per cent of secondary schools (Chart 2.1).

These are the findings of an independent study* for the NUT which examined data from a representative sample of 980 primary schools and 368 secondary schools. The data collected included pupil numbers, budget settlements, staffing (both teaching and non teaching) and any impact on the curriculum.

Winners from the budget settlement (Chart 2.2) were mainly in the Midlands, with a relatively high proportion of primary winners in the North West and Inner London, and secondary winners in the North East. In Wales, half the schools reported the budget settlements had remained the same, though a few thought they had improved.

On average, primary losers in the budget settlements were £32,032 and secondary £129,367 worse off. Winners were £38,999 and £146,588 respectively better off. Winners were able to improve staffing with an estimated increase of 1,165 primary and 3,135 secondary teaching posts.

Schools with lower than expected income in 2003-04 have attempted to balance their books by a combination of measures including cutting back on staff (whose costs make up a very large proportion of the budget), use of reserves, and making other savings or earnings.

Some 2,000 teachers were made redundant in schools across the system, (Charts 3.4 and 3.5) with 1,240 in primary schools and 760 in secondary schools. The remainder were lost through ending fixed term contracts, a form of redundancy, (3,320), or through natural wastage (3,480).

On occasions, if a deputy or assistant head left, the head opted to carry a greater load. Alternatively, senior staff could be replaced by teachers on lower salaries. Staffing was also cut by not making appointments in line with rising rolls.

Some 12,300 support staff posts were also lost. Most were teaching assistants (86.4 per cent), but clerical assistants, technicians, librarians and school meals staff were also being shed. About ten times as many were going from primary schools, reflecting their greater role in those schools. Not only were there cutbacks in support staff: only 29.3 per cent of the 172 primary schools with rising rolls and 41.9 of the 185 expanding secondary schools said they could afford to appoint extra support staff.

Many schools were only able to keep up their staff complements by draining their reserves, “slashed to zero” as an arts college in the West Midlands put it. Both primary and secondary schools constantly referred to how their reserves had kept them afloat. But the money could also have been held for a particular purpose. “It will be impossible to meet the reduction in teachers’ workload requirements without using all reserves which were earmarked for a building project” (Infant, North West).

While the use of reserves enabled these schools to maintain their staffing this year that can only be a temporary solution. Once the reserves have gone they have gone. Unless there is a marked improvement in the next settlement, the full force of the underfunding this year will be felt in 2004-05.

Some schools were setting deficit budgets in the hope, as one school put it, that the Government “will come to its senses”. Others were planning to repay on the basis of a rising roll over several years. More schools may be in deficit than have explicitly planned. An 11-16 comprehensive in the South East explained disarmingly, “We have not set a deficit budget, but I do not expect our proposed budget to work by the end of the financial year”.

Schools have looked at all possible means of balancing the books this year. A number have massively cut budgets, for among other things, training, capitation, maintenance, supply, books, study support and clubs. They have also looked at ways to boost their earnings. An 11-16 comprehensive in Wales is funding a teaching post out of the profits of running the catering. Several primary schools were reliant on the earnings of the headteacher outside the school on, for example, Ofsted inspections. Donations were also playing a part. The staff at a voluntary controlled infant and junior school in the East Midlands were giving a day’s pay towards the purchase of library books. The School Association was making a bigger contribution at a primary school in the South East. The governors were raising money to avoid redundancies at a primary school in the South West.

The cuts have impacted on teaching in various ways (Chart 5.1). Most common is larger classes in half the secondary schools and a fifth of primary schools. Planning, preparation and marking time, already very limited, was being reduced for primary teachers. More use was being made of teaching assistants and efforts were being made to recruit less expensive staff. One in ten primary heads have also increased the amount of time they spend teaching with one carrying a 90 per cent teaching load.

Secondary schools were reducing the number of lessons in some subjects, reducing the number of sets, asking teachers to teach more outside their specialisms and cutting non-contact time.

An over-riding concern for schools was that the staff cuts and other savings would impinge on the quality of education they were able to provide. Both primary and secondary schools were concerned about the consequences of the larger classes and reduction in individual support. An 11-16 comprehensive in the North East said, “We are a school in ‘serious weakness’ in an area of high deprivation. We are losing 3.4 teachers, and the larger groups are bound to affect standards.”

The survey found that a common response of schools to a difficult budget has been to shed support staff. Primary schools were planning to lose some 10,700 full-time equivalent support posts and secondary schools, 1,620. This must call into question the capability of some schools to keep to the timelines for reducing workload. Throughout the country the heads of primary schools have found it impossible to reconcile plans to reduce teacher workload with their budget settlements. Support hours were being redistributed away from children with statements and from learning support to carry out the 23 tasks teachers should not be required to do from September this year. Some support posts were going to enable schools to retain teachers.

Headteachers of secondary schools were also concerned about staff morale. Some schools were shedding support staff and others found that their recruitment plans had to be scrapped. A number of headteachers had no firm ideas as to how the workload reform could be implemented within their budgets, and some were contenting themselves with displacing present tasks. Occasionally, schools were able to increase their support staff out of savings, including teachers going, but the load on teachers could be increased to solve other problems.

The pupil teacher ratio in primary schools is much less favourable than in secondary schools with around a third fewer teachers. This affects the amount of non-contact time that is available, with many teachers in those schools having hardly any.

The Government’s plans for reducing teacher workload include guaranteeing primary teachers ten per cent planning, preparation and assessment time from September 2005, but this does not appear to involve funding the schools to employ more teachers. Indeed, the 2003-04 settlement threatens to increase workload by obliging some schools to shed teaching and support staff.

In the light of their 2003-04 budget settlements many headteachers were at a loss to see how they could begin to implement workload reductions when they were having to cutback on teaching and support staff, or unable to make the new appointments that would be needed.

E ND PR77b/03

*Copies of the full report, “The reality of school staffing” by Professor Alan Smithers and Dr Pamela Robinson of the Centre for Education and Employment Research, Liverpool University, are available from the NUT Press Office.

For further information contact:

Olive Forsythe
Tel: 020 7380 4706 (office)
Tel: 020 8313 1692 (weekday evenings)

Or if all else fails:
Tel: 07879 480061.