Service cuts will also hit the quality of our schools

Published: 21 October, 2010

• WHILE Camden has lost out on money for rebuilding schools, the coalition government has assured the public that cash for schools is safe! 

But wait a minute. Why are all London schools are planning for significantly reduced budgets? 

The cash that is supposed to be “safe” is the core school funding; it excludes anything that is not core funding. The last Labour government made available substantial additional funds to compensate areas with high deprivation. These funds will be replaced, we are told, by the pupil premium, targeted at pupils from deprived backgrounds. 

How this is measured will have a significant influence on what particular schools receive (traditionally free school meals entitlement has been used, but other indices would reduce the benefit for boroughs like Camden). 

The pupil premium, focused on individual pupils, will not take into account the challenges faced by schools with significant numbers of pupils qualifying as deprived. 

There is a world of difference between schools with five to 10 per cent of pupils on free school meals and those with 70 to 80 per cent (as with a number of Camden schools). 

Education services will be hit by funds cut from the youth service, Connexions (careers service) – abolished, Sure Start, and an array of voluntary organisations who provide help for struggling families, not to mention the work that Safer Neighbourhoods does with young people. In Camden, a borough with substantial pockets of high deprivation, as well as some very wealthy areas, the threat to funding for these services will hit hard.  

Camden has prided itself on the success of its schools. These cuts will not make it easy to maintain those high standards and the levels of achievement that Britain so badly needs to maintain its economic position in the world.

DEIRDRE KRYMER
Twisden Road, NW5

So important to have a good learning environment

• ALAN Rutter’s letter on new school buildings (Head should protest, October 14) raises some important points. 

How important are new school buildings to the borough? How far should we go in Camden in opposing the cuts to the Building Schools for the Future programme?

As a Green, I am very keen to see all our children not only have the benefit of good teachers but also of a pleasant learning environment and good school facilities. 

I remember how important this was to me as I was growing up.

The evidence is clear that good buildings make a difference. 

Whether this is because all the children and the teachers want to go to those schools or because the kids feel a sense of pride in their school is not quite so clear. But one way or another its important to have a good learning environment. Probably more so when neighbouring schools like those in Islington do have nice new buildings.

However, Labour’s BSF programme with its high-minded intentions had some major flaws. First, the financial arrangements were complex, favouring PFI contracts. These have been used in hospitals and other arenas and the costs have regularly been shown to very high. This is not only because these private sector companies borrow money at a higher rate than local authorities but also because of their complexity. That means jobs for corporate lawyers, accountants and others. And ultimately the building is not owned by the community but by the PFI contractor. Admittedly, not the whole BSF programme involved use of PFI contracts but nevertheless they were complex contracts with compulsory IT contracts attached to give private partners an incentive to be involved. 

Secondly, little effort was put into finding good value solutions or solutions that took into account other environmental costs. Little attention was given to try to avoid the noise, congestion and carbon emissions caused by massive demolitions.

I’d like to see our schools review their proposals to put together cost-effective schemes that avoid demolition with all its environmental costs where they can. 

Also, these proposals should relate to low energy buildings which use natural light, ventilation and building materials, and which provide warm comfortable surroundings for our children. 

And I’d like to see the government fund these proposals using simple straightforward contracts which don’t mean huge bills from lawyers and accountants. We can get affordable school buildings which are really for the future and in the process, create local jobs at this point in time when employment opportunities are so important.

CLLR MAYA DE SOUZA
Green Party, Highgate ward

Hardly ‘fair’

• I MET Frank Dobson MP, Fiona Millar and concerned parents in Kentish Town last week to discuss the impact of central government cuts to school building.  

A total of 11 secondary schools in Camden will see funding that was guaranteed by Labour taken away from them by the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition.  These schools include Acland Burghley, Camden School for Girls, La Sainte Union, Maria Fidelis, Parliament Hill and William Ellis.  

I worry that children in our area, including my grandchildren, will not be given the facilities they need and deserve.  

Camden’s schools are some of the best in the country but it is a shame that the buildings do not always match the quality of teaching. 

As a governor at a local primary school I am keenly aware of the concerns of parents that their children will not get the high quality facilities they need to achieve their full potential when they reach secondary school.  

When combined with cuts to child benefit for some families and the announcement that the government intends to lift the cap on tuition fees, the coalition government’s policies seem disproportionately to hit children and young people. 

The current buzzword from the government is “fairness”. 

But how can this possibly be described as fair?

JENNY HEADLAM-WELLS
Labour candidate for Kentish Town ward