Whose money is it?
The 2009/2010 spreadsheet detailing the finances of Cornwall's schools offers a few more nuggets: nearly one in six Cornish secondary schools ended that financial year in debt, yet secondary headteachers seem better able to spend their revenues than their colleagues in primary schools.
The total resources available to Cornwall's secondary schools that year was nearly 拢178 million. Their total uncommitted revenue balance at year end was only 拢2.1 million. In contrast, Cornish primary schools had less money available (拢160 million) yet trousered an impressive 拢4.4 million (more than enough to build a new school in St Tudy.)
I've spent an interesting couple of days trying - and mostly failing - to get primary headteachers to talk about this. The argument that the money is needed for specific projects does not bear scrutiny. If you include the figure for committed revenue balances (an extra 拢8.8 million) you see that they actually reached the end of the year with more than 拢13 million in the bank.
I accept that it is comforting to go into a new financial year able to deal flexibly with unforseen staffing issues and repair things promptly when they break or wear out. But at what point does "prudent saving" become simply "saving for a rainy day" - which might or might not ever come?
It is now 23 years since Margaret Thatcher's government introduced Local Management of Schools, snipping the purse strings of the elected local councils and promoting headteachers to the role of mini chief executives.
I'm afaid I rather annoyed one primary school headteacher this week when I questioned his use of the phrase "we're running a business." While I don't dispute that schools need to be run in a business-like way, state schools are not required to return a financial profit on our investment. They are merely required to educate our children.
I'm 大象传媒 Radio Devon鈥檚 Graham Smith, blogging on news, views and some fresh insights into West Country life, particularly the way government works locally and nationally.
Comment number 1.
At 19th Feb 2011, Stephen Richardson wrote:'merely required to educate our children'
How flippant can you get!
Schools are required to manage their affairs exactly as if they were a business - that's a fact. Just because they do not make a profit does not mean that they don't have to be very smart with the money they are given.
Perhaps this is absolutely correct in these hard economic times - but I think you would be the first to complain if schools didn't take a business approach to their budgeting.
What doesn't help is the continual use of education as a political football between the Westminster parties.
Take the dichotemy between the Rose Review and the Cambridge Primary Review. Teachers are left with no idea of how the National Curriculum is going to pan out. How can you plan for the economic impact of something that Westminster is continually changing its mind about?
I'm not surprised teachers get a bit miffed when you ask your questions - perhaps they could better spend their time getting on with merely educating our children than answering questions which are loaded to show them in a bad light.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 19th Feb 2011, Saltashgaz wrote:There are certain people living in Cornwall who read hundred鈥檚 of lines of text within a personal blog and will search for any comment to flip and use as abuse, Graham clearly says
鈥..While I don't dispute that schools need to be run in a business-like way, state schools are not required to return a financial profit on our investment鈥︹
A business is created to make a profit, try watching dragons den (大象传媒 plug), otherwise it would be a charity, schools are neither, they are a service paid for by the populous and as such should be accountable to us.
I see the private sector taking over the running of schools very soon, with most schools walking into the trap set this year with proposals to have them fully financially independent. This is the biggest concern I have for the future of our education system not excel spreadsheets at county hall.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 19th Feb 2011, Compadre wrote:You are quite wrong Mr Smith.
"Committed Revenue Balance" is the traditional "month 13" stuff which are things invoiced or actually specifically committed but not paid for yet, it will also be sometimes considerable amounts that are subject to a dispute, or in that year monies held back by schools relating to PFI 1. It will almost all be money that will be spent and is committed, like it says on the tin.
Your use of "trousered" is deliberately offensive and not worthy of you.
The 拢4.4M rollover on a 拢160M budget is not unreasonable and will include cash that is being rolled over for specific projects, for instance replacing IT equipment.
I'm sorry to say that your usual standards of diligence are lacking in this piece.
Even a small school will employ a dozen or more staff and manage a budget of 拢200,000. A moderately large primary will have a budget of over a 拢1,000,000 and might employ 60 staff.
The real scandal in school funding is that Cornwall receives 拢4,000 per pupil from central government but will pass less than half of that on to some schools, while other schools will for party political reasons be given over 拢14,000 per pupil. The disparity is not based on the needs of the pupil, but on political expediency.
State schools and their governors ARE required by law to demonstrate that they give good value for money, and they are accountable to their stakeholders for how the money is spent. They are also judged publicly on specific aspects of their output.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 20th Feb 2011, Graham Smith wrote:Stephen: The Department for Education rules allow schools to hold on to a maximum of 6.5% of their direct grant. I am not suggesting that any of Cornwall's schools have broken the rules - I am simply questioning whether this consequence of the 1988 Education Reform Act is a good thing. My question to the schools with large reserves is simply "What are you doing with the money?" And by drawing attention to the Cornwall-wide unspent 拢4.4 million, I am asking if anyone can suggest a better way to use it. Are these questions "loaded" or merely inconvenient?
Compadre: Specific projects are accounted for in committed reserves. Uncommitted reserves are exactly what they say - a mystery.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)