Funding plans spark debate
John O’Dowd’s proposed changes to school funding have come up against strong opposition.
Proposals to change the common funding formula for schools have sparked a heated debate which is likely to continue through the rest of this academic year.
A review of the formula, chaired by former principal Sir Robert Salisbury. Minister John O’Dowd’s response, published in June this year, proposes:
• separate funding formulae (one for primary and nursery schools and another for post-primary schools);
• an additional £10 million for tackling disadvantage in 2014-2015;
• an extra premium for children in care; and
• removing the sports and premises criteria.
The department would only use only free school meals as the criteria for social need in primary schools. Educational under-attainment is currently used as well, which helps children who have difficulties but are not living in poverty.
A final announcement is due before Christmas and any changes will take effect from April 2014.
John O’Dowd concluded that the current scheme did not properly support children and young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. He accepts that the budgets for some schools will decrease but says that, in most cases, this will be less than 3 per cent of last year’s allocation.
“I have not taken any final decision yet,” O’Dowd said. “I urge anyone, including schools, parents and pupils, with an interest in how schools are funded to make their views known.” The consultation is open until Friday, 18 October, and scrutiny will continue in the Assembly’s Education Committee.
UUP education spokesman Danny Kinahan has strongly criticised the proposals and has written to the principals of primary schools to outline the potential consequences. The UUP accepts the need to change the common funding scheme but calculates that the Minister’s changes would cut funding for 670 out of 832 primary schools, which would also result in job losses for school staff.
Kinahan added: “Whilst the scale of the cuts vary significantly, it is inevitable that some of the schools with a smaller enrolment, which were already starting on tighter budgets, may find it a lot harder to absorb them.” The planned redistribution of funding was “brutal social engineering” at the expense of children in middle income households.
Following on from Kinahan’s comments, DUP education spokesman, Mervyn Storey pointed out that free school meals uptake is often low in deprived Protestant communities. He said that families in need should get help through social security benefits (although these are also due to be cut through welfare reform).
Storey added: “The DUP will do all in our power to ensure that these proposals are not implemented and that an agreed way of funding our schools is achieved. We will continue to demand a formula that meets the needs of children in the classroom, irrespective of sector.”
The SDLP’s Seán Rogers has called for small schools must be protected from cuts. “We are told that those viewed as strategically important small schools will receive the resources they need,” he commented. “It is essential that small schools are not disadvantaged during the approval process.”
His Alliance Party counterpart, Trevor Lunn, said that it would be more logical to wait until the establishment of the Education and Skills Authority before making changes to the school budgets.
“It is not reasonable to take money from successful school’s budgets, which are severely stretched already,” he said. “Funding for schools should only be changed when we have finished our previous schools reforms. We appear to be putting the cart before the horse.”
