School budget changes are morally wrong, says head

Steve Flavin has written an open letter to councillors over plans to slash funds intended to help some of the town’s poorest children at Churchfields Academy.

Nova Hreod will have £338,947 removed and Dorcan Technology College £166,025.

The cash came from a web of grants aimed at helping students in deprived areas.

Conversely, funding to Isambard Community School will increase by £238,652, Kingsdown by £227,428 and Commonweal by £197,017.

The changes have been drawn up by the Schools Forum, an independent body which advises the local authority on funding.

Mr Flavin warned that the planned cuts will effectively wipe out the £100,000 the school receives through the Pupil Premium, launched by the Lib Dems to raise students’ educational standards and life chances.

In the letter he writes: “I trust that you will be as concerned as I am by the proposals of the Schools Forum in Swindon which will be presented for approval by the council.

“I cannot believe that anyone could support such dramatic shifts which have the greatest negative impact on the very children for whom the Pupil Premium was intended to support.

“Yet a process, which has not been as open and transparent and as consultative as it should have been, has led to an outcome which I believe cannot be supported morally, ethically and socially, never mind educationally.”

Mr Flavin cites figures showing that Isambard has 40 per cent of students claiming free school meals, compared to just 13 per cent at Isambard. Churchfields’ overall budget for the next year is £5.5m, not including the £281,520 it stands to lose.

Mr Flavin writes: “I hope that the situation which has evolved in Swindon will cause you to act swiftly in order to prevent the poorest, weakest and most vulnerable in our society from suffering loss in a way which undermines the quality of education of young people and limits their prospects and life chances.”

The letter, sent to all councillors ahead of the recommendations going before the local authority on March 21, is also signed by chairman of the academy’s board, Paul Gregory.

Under a new funding regime planned for September, Government grants would be channelled into an overall fund to be shared between all schools and academies.

The change, affecting the standards fund, ministerial priority and specialist schools grants, is intended to simplify a complicated allocation system.

Cash would be made available to all educational institutions through the dedicated schools grant, based on a formula worked out by pupil numbers.

But critics say the Schools Forum, which includes headteachers, governors and union representatives, did not need to drastically vary the amounts already allocated.

The council is providing £600,000 in a one-off payment for the first year to minimise the losses at the worst-affected schools. It says the new system is fairer, simpler and easier to understand and will be based on pupil numbers and needs rather than historical factors.

The letter to councillors

I am writing to you as the headteacher of one of the Government’s latest academies in Swindon about proposed cuts in funding which will effectively cancel the pupil premium in a number of Secondary Schools.

As you are aware, the Schools Forum is made up of representatives from different sections of the education community in Swindon including Secondary Headteachers. However, there is no Headteacher on the Schools Forum who represents Academies and I believe that the recommendation of the Schools Forum contravenes DfE guidance for School Forums in England and Wales: I support the DfE in seeking to create funding formulas which are simple, less bureaucratic and easier to understand. What is happening in Swindon is that this process has led to significant changes in how schools are funded which is making winners of schools in wealthy areas and losers in schools in the most deprived areas of Swindon; this can’t be right.

The recommendation of the Schools Forum on Tuesday 6th March will be presented to Swindon Council on 21st March and I am deeply concerned that these disastrous proposals will be approved.

When the Local Authority present these proposals to Cabinet members they will seek to demonstrate fairness, consultation, openness, transparency and approval. At no point have I been presented with an opportunity to discuss and debate the proposal to redistribute significant sums of money as a result of the removal of ring-fencing.

The LA argue that what they are proposing is a fairer system in order to justify their actions and attract support. How can it be fair to remove significant sums of funding from schools such as Churchfields serving some of the most needy children in our community and redistribute it to schools which do not have anything like the same characteristics of deprivation and need? This is morally indefensible.

I am writing to alert you to the fact that the most vulnerable, anxious and needy children and families will suffer loss and that these cuts will effectively cancel out any benefit which should have resulted from the pupil premium. I will be writing to ask Nick Clegg on his view on this direct attack on the pupil premium.

These are worrying times if the democratic process works in a way which creates winners for the wealthy and losers of the poor, especially when it is presented under the guise of fairer distribution.

I look forward to your support.

One of the winners says...

ISAMBARD Community School yesterday defended the new arrangements that will increase its budget by £238,652.

A spokeswoman for the school, in Redhouse, said: “The schools that have gained have been completely underfunded in previous years.

“Only four schools benefited from the money. Initially, this was because they were in special measures, and the extra money has since served its purpose in bringing them out of special measures.

“Isambard has a considerable amount of pupils claiming free school meals as well as children who are looked after or have parents out of work.

“The new arrangements will help these children at all schools across the board, rather than just the four who benefited before.”

The spokeswoman said Isambard was running at a deficit and had lower staffing levels on average than other schools in the borough.

She added: “The old formula needed to be reviewed.

“It was reviewed by the local authority and consultations were carried out where every headteacher agreed to how the money should be distributed under the new formula.”