Children are suffering from real-terms spending cuts in up to 88% of schools.
Sirsly? Where in buggery does that number come from?
We’ve been told public debt is the outcome of overspending on public services rather than bailing out the banks.
Well, yes, bailing out the banks made a profit…..
“up to” means *not more than* so if there are spending cuts in “real terms” in 1% of schools he can claim that it is true. There is a term for this “suggestio falsi”£.
Suffering? The kids surely don’t even know.
I’ve scratched the surface, and the exact fact is that although total school expenditure has risen, the number of pupils has risen even faster, so spending-per-pupil is down slightly.
There’s some quibble about real vs nominal. We’ve had a few years of above-average inflation and low growth, so all government spending has increased at below-inflation rates. What matters of course is the inflation rate in the education sector; which will be lower than general inflation thanks to the public sector pay cap.
My brother in law works in a primary school and at the end of every week they have loads of fruit to throw away – probably not that expensive compared to a teacher’s wage but still annoys me.
This might matter if there were any evidence worth a damn that tiny differences in spending has the least effect on educational outcomes. Or even quite big differences, I suspect.
Parts of my school were over 600 years old and the windows leaked and rattled in the wind and rain.
Didn’t seem to stop the school churning out university entrants (and this was back in the 70s when going to uni meant something)
https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/931791315897147392
has a nice graph showing the projected per pupil spending is higher than in 2006/07, and a lot higher than 5 years before that.
“the exact fact is that although total school expenditure has risen, the number of pupils has risen even faster, so spending-per-pupil is down slightly”
Strange because in the school where I’m a governor, the budget is based on the number of pupils counted some time in January. More pupils=more money. And that’s before pupil premium, special needs, etc…
“Parts of my school were over 600 years old and the windows leaked and rattled in the wind and rain.” The ancient bits of my school had vanished – English armies, I suppose.
Since we were young, naturally rain didn’t fall, and wind occurred only when we went sailing.
So, schools funding has doubled since the 1980s. My loaf of bread also costs twice what it did in the 1980s. There’s no inflation indicator in that graph.
My school was one year old (1956). I remember the asbestos insulation on the ceiling.
My school was approaching 100 years old when I left in the 80’s, and mostly a dump.
It’s been upgraded hugely since, but I suspect this is almost entirely due to more parents being able to afford a more highly-polished “product”. I doubt the quality of teaching has improved at all.
The graph has a y-axis with “15-16 prices” and a caption with “real-terms” . This is to get around the issue of showing inflation on a separate line. Hth jgh.
@Bongo – worth noting that the appalling “Rachael_Swindon” twitter account is allegedly run by Rachael’s husband Jon after his own account was banned. I believe there was some unpleasantness involving another woman.
Anon – rather than throw out the fruit they should teach the kids ways to use it in the creation of liquid. Involving copper containers and a bit of pipework… and some heating of the mash…
The teachers would be happier, the school could even apply to sell it to the parents… and the fruit would not be wasted. hic.
This might matter if there were any evidence worth a damn that tiny differences in spending has the least effect on educational outcomes. Or even quite big differences, I suspect.
If you get the PISA figures and plot them, the correlation between spending per pupil per country and results, at least for Maths, is quite low. It is ever so slightly positive.
What this implies is that increasing spending does correlate to better outcomes, but that there are lots of other factors that are far more important, and it takes a lot of money to make any difference at all. If you want to improve outcomes, thinking about where you spend the money is far more important than the amount you spend.
I like your thinking, Martin.
As a not incidental point: where did the money come from to bail out the banks? Did the government magic it up out of nothing? If so why don’t they do it all the time as Lincoln did in the Civil War and conversely the Nazis did to put six million unemployed to work in the 30’s?
Don’t believe what the BoE says about the majority of money in the modern economy being created by commercial banks! Propaganda! .
(You have nothing to lose but your brains!)
(You have nothing to lose but your brains!)
Where did you lose yours, then, Violet Elizabeth?
@ DBC Reed
The vast bulk of the money to bail out UK banks came from the private sector shareholders, mostly through Rights Issues. The first Rights Issue by Lloyds was fully subscribed – it was only when the bank asked for a second Rights Issue at a premium to the share preice that HM Treasury was able to buy a chunk at a discount to Net Asset Value. Barclays raised some money fromMiddle eastern investors.
So the rest of your post is irrelevant