A Timely Reform by Ian Ridley

Blog & web site of Ian Ridley

September, 2010Archive for

The Pupil Premium must not be used to paper over education cuts

Thursday, September 16th, 2010

School signSarah Teather (Lib Dem Minister of State for Children ad Families) is rightly publicising the “Pupil Premium” policy of the coalition government. The policy is a Lib Dem manifesto commitment that forms part of the coalition agreement.

The premium is a (as yet unspecified) sum of money that will be attached to individual pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. These funds will be allocated to the school where each pupil is taught and the Headteacher will be able to decide how best to spend the money to help the pupil’s education.

Sarah Teather has stressed that the funding for this policy will come from outside the schools budget. So it should be additional money for schools with pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The Pupil Premium has the extra refinement of being attached to the pupil wherever they go to school.

However there are several initiatives already in place that direct money towards these and other pupils struggling in school. Examples include “One to One” tuition for pupils that need extra help with English and Maths and the more broad-brush allocation of funds to local authorities based on deprivation.

The “One to One” funding has not been guaranteed beyond March 2011 and other budget cuts are already beginning to be felt. For example, in Leicester there will be £50,000 less in the Educational Psychologist budget this year.

It is likely that Head Teachers will have full discretion on how the Pupil Premium is spent. So it very probable that any extra funds that schools get this way will be used to make up for cuts elsewhere.

There is a real danger that the Pupil Preimum will not improve the lot (relative to the pre-election situation) of the children it is targeted at. Instead it will be used to paper over the cuts across the school budget.

Lose the sound bites, lose the coalition “line”

Saturday, September 4th, 2010

I first began to get worried about some Lib Dem sound bites during the closing stages of General Election campaign. Nick Clegg was on Radio 5 I think. He was asked a question about the economy and kept repeating the phrase “Greedy Bankers” in the answer. It took the radio presenter to point out that not all bankers are necessarily greedy.

Lib Dem Cabinet Ministers have continued this trend towards ill-chosen sound bites when defending coalition policy. We have had Clegg’s “Gold plated pensions” in reference to the public sector, when most public employees earn modest wages. I agree that public sector final salary schemes need to be looked but I wouldn’t generalise them as “Gold-plated”. This sound bite didn’t exactly reach out to public sector employees and make friends.

Danny Alexander calls the VAT rise “unavoidable”. However there are alternatives in the Lib Dems’ own manifesto:

  • Mansion Tax;
  • Ending tax avoidance;
  • Not renewing Trident;
  • Restricting pension tax relief to the basic rate.

Taken on their own they would, at the very least, have reduced the amount of VAT increase. Other alternatives not in the manifesto include income tax rises (gasp) or other revenue-raising changes to income tax thresholds.

And this is what frustrates me the most. It is not just the poor presentation of policy via sound-bite,  it is the unwillingness of Lib Dem Ministers to talk about Lib Dem manifesto commitments that have been traded away in the policy discussions with the Tories.

VAT is a key example of this. Nick Clegg defends this and other “painful” budget measures because,

“Things have changed in the last few weeks. The international situation has deteriorated very badly indeed – that’s why we had to move very quickly on it.”

Danny Alexander, as I wrote earlier, called it, “unavoidable”.

Another defence used by some Lib Dem Ministers is, to précis, “it’s all Labour’s fault and they would have put up VAT anyway.”

All these of the could and have been said by Tory Ministers. There is “a coalition line” that no-one in the Cabinet seems to deviate very far from. All normal for a single party government but strange behaviour for a coalition of two parties.

What no Lib Dem Minister has really spelled out is,

“VAT rises are our first preference but it is a compromise between Liberal Democrat and Conservative priorities. We would have preferred to raise money by a Mansion Tax,  cancelling the Trident replacement, reducing tax loopholes and ending higher rate pension relief but the Tories did not agree to these.”

We need to be hearing and reading more of the nuts and bolts of how the coalition has reached policy agreements and what the Lib Dems initially brought to the table. Ministers are keen to talk about the “good news” of which Lib Dem policies are in the coalition programme but we need to hear more about those that aren’t. These are the policies that really distinguish us from the Tories, simply because the Tories won’t agree to them.

If Lib Dem Minsters continue along the present path,  it will look like the Tories are cherry-picking Lib Dem policies to soften coalition cuts and tax rises. Voters will increasingly be unable to identify a distinctive Liberal Democrat position.

And then the question, “Why vote Liberal Democrat?” will be difficult to answer.