News

A key reform in the Department for Education and Skills five-year education strategy looks set to completely change the way schools operate financially. From 2006 every school in England will have a guaranteed three-year budget geared to its pupil numbers. Schools will also have a guaranteed minimum "per pupil" increase each year. This dedicated schools budget will be delivered through local authorities, but councils will not be able to divert the budget to other services.

The new budget will be aligned with the school year and not the financial year, as currently happens. School funding from local authorities is set to increase by more than 6 per cent in 2005-6 and the government plans that the dedicated schools budget will increase by "at least that rate" in 2006-7 and 2007-8. The education strategy says: "No authority will receive less funding for education than its current level of spending, and we will seek to ensure there are no adverse effects for the rest of local government." A consultation into the new funding arrangements is being launched this autumn.


The motivation behind this radical plan is, according to the education strategy, to "give head teachers and governors unprecedented financial security and confidence, and the ability to plan for the future". The step will also "end the long-standing confused responsibility between central and local government for setting the level of school funding".

While in theory this all makes perfect sense, what does it mean in practice for schools? Bob Carstairs is assistant general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association. He supports the move and says it will stop schools' consistent worries over funding. "If a head knows she has a specific amount for a project, such as accessibility ramps, she can budget for it."

If schools are given dedicated, pupil-driven budgets, are they really going to want to increase the amount of provision for vulnerable children? They may fear that having children with additional needs in their classrooms will simply eat into money they could spend in other ways, such as getting their pass rates up.

Some schools are going to be more reluctant than others to take on children who require extra resources.

Penny Thompson, co-chair of the children and families committee of the Association of Directors of Social Services, says that while there is a responsibility on local authorities and schools to ensure looked-after children have educational placements, the ADSS would be concerned if there were a reduction in schools' commitment to this. "Attainment and inclusion are two sides of the same coin, and the whole basis of the children's agenda is that we have got to support children's needs."

She adds that children should be educated in a way that meets their needs while not undermining the needs of their fellow students: "The presumption is we should be as inclusive as possible."

So is there a risk that some schools will be unofficially labelled as teaching only successful children while other schools become ghettos? Ian Elliott, senior projects officer of the Local Government Association, says as schools become more autonomous and compete with each other they may be less willing to take on vulnerable children. "We could end up with a two-tier school system of those children who are achieving and then the rest. There is a limited amount local authorities can do if these schools are given full autonomy."

The upshot seems to be that children needing the most help may be placed in the schools that are least able to provide necessary support.

Discrimination against children who are hard to place already exists in the education system and, according to London-based chief education officer Caroline Whalley, more autonomy could pose an even greater threat: "Schools can already slow down the admissions process and some youngsters can go as long as a term without receiving education. This makes then even more disadvantaged." Allowing schools their own three-year budgets could further exacerbate this, she adds, unless explicit safeguards are put in place.


If a school place is not available for a child then they can receive tuition at home or attend a pupil referral unit along with other children not being taught in the mainstream. These options are far from ideal, and it is often the most needy children who receive this type of education.

The provision of services to vulnerable children has always been an issue for schools, and Carstairs argues it very much depends upon a school's priorities. He adds that most head teachers have a social conscience and would not refuse a child entry because of the costs associated with their vulnerability. "Most heads are as keen on promoting the needs of vulnerable children as they are of ordinary children."

Schools have always been the central institution in children's lives. However, the Children Bill has been criticised for not placing the duty to ensure the educational attainment and well-being of looked-after children on the schools themselves. This duty is currently the responsibility of local authorities.

However, Thompson says the ADSS is lobbying for the Children Bill to place this duty on schools rather than local authorities. Thompson is also executive director of social services at Sheffield Council and says the secondary schools in her local authority have all agreed to help and support each other's work. This is something she believes other schools can learn from, especially if they are overseeing their own guaranteed three-year budgets. "We don't want to see any undermining of collective responsibility."

A further boost for placing the duty on schools to meet the needs of vulnerable children came from July's interagency group Children Bill conference (news, page 14, 22 July). Delegates heard that schools' three-year budgets should be conditional on them taking responsibility for the overall welfare of children and young people in their area. Christine Davies, the lead for children's services in the Confederation of Education and Children Services Managers, told the conference that schools were in a privileged position and with that came responsibility. She also urged local schools to work together and take "collective responsibility" for children and young people in their area.

Allowing schools the freedom to decide how to best meet the needs of their pupils is something few would argue against. However, with this power has to come responsibility. Schools must ensure that they do not ignore those children who are most in need, and it may be down to the government to ensure this happens.