Forest Hill School Funding Levels 2010/11 - 2015/16

parallel discussion visible only to Local Politics and Politicos members

I made a Freedom of Information request for the last five years of annual budgets including the proportion allocated to the school’s 2008 PFI contract.

Unfortunately the full budget breakdowns were not provided, but the FoI response shows the level of funding, and the proportion allocated to PFI:

Screen Shot 2017-03-30 at 17.00.07.png1474×446 67.6 KB

(this is the full, unabridged FoI response)

I’m making further enquiries about any PFI capital repayments that are being paid by the school or local authority.

Did this match your expectation? I guess to make it useful it woukd need to be compared to another local non PFI school.

Other locals had commented that PFI made up 10% of the budget, so yes, this squares with the speculation that had been swirling.

It’s not the full picture though. I’d like to see pupil numbers, staff costs and PFI capital repayments (if any?)

Less than 10% for FM and energy costs sounds pretty decent to me. Worrying is a 5% drop in funding.

That could be down to a drop in pupil numbers?

Well the last Ofsted report from Nov 2013 shows 1,377 students with capacity for 1,535. Surely an FOI wouldn’t be needed to find the student population for this school year. In 2011 Ofsted reported 1,477

Falling pupil numbers reduces funding levels but unfortunately doesn’t reduce PFI liabilities. It’s a toxic equation that has led to the closure of other schools:

There’s no fall in numbers there’s a massive and increasing funding reduction going on in education at the moment that is really serious. Whatever it’s like now it’s going to get a lot worse for all schools unless something changes.

I suggest you look at http://www.fairfundingforallschools.org

I think the proposed Fair Funding Formula is about changing the nationwide allocation of school funding with some underfunded schools winning, and some traditionally well-funded schools losing - but losses capped at 3%.

With due respect, they propose the following:

• Increase investment in all schools by protecting per-pupil funding in real terms for the life of this Parliament
• Provide the additional funding needed to implement the National Funding Formula that increases funding for maintained schools and academies in comparatively poorly funded areas of England without cutting funding per pupil for schools in any other part of the country, so that no school loses out.

It’s easy to demand more money when you’re only focussing on a single issue - unlike the government, which has to balance an overall budget.

I’ve read all that. That’s the Govt hype. You can have this crap formula or that one. The reality is that in real terms virtually all schools are losing out. Funding reducing. Costs increasing. Problem is real and will get worse.

The government do have to balance an overall budget but they also have to decide if investing in children, in health, in older people, in public services is important. This is ideological

The consultation states:

What evidence do we have that the above is untrue? Especially given this hasn’t yet been implemented?

Read the press. Talk to school governors.

I can assure you (as a school governor who talks to other school governors) that this is real. And not just because London is ‘losing out’.

I’m sure some individuals have doubts and suspicions, but surely we need to see the stats that show the overall level of level of funding will go down, if that’s the claim being made here?

The core budget may be protected but pupil numbers have increased massively across the country over the past 10 years. The cash is being spread much more thinly and ‘addditional budgets’ have mostly disappeared.

As I said this is only partly about the funding formula but mostly about reducing income and increasing costs.

I suggest you submit an FOI request that asks what proportion of Lewisham schools are forecast to be in deficit during 2017/2018 and for the following 2 years. Noting that maintained schools have to submit a budget to Lewisham by the 1st May. So you may not get an answer before then.

This wasn’t “swirling speculation”, it was based on information garnered - you’re not the only one to have requested this.

I wasn’t disparaging the theory. To be clear, I was among those speculating that FHS’s woes were rooted in Labour’s 2008 PFI contract.

It’s a 30 year contract!

They absolutely are. We’re all aware of that (despite many of us being “lefties”!). Please don’t make this political, this is a pressing and emotional subject for FHS parents and teachers and an important one for the local community. We’d rather this subject wasn’t in the Politicos section and was open to all - it’s a community issue, not a political one - whether you’re right, left or middle, all these parents want to do is protect their kids’ education. We want to find alternatives to the sweeping cuts currently on the table - one of those that we’re proposing is that Lewisham Council seeks to renegotiate the PFI contract.

If I’m honest I’d also rather topics like this could be discussed openly on the forum. But they inevitably get political and this has caused problems for other local forums.

The fact that you refer to yourself as “we” is a clue here - this topic creates “us and them” scenarios and people are mobilising into groups to fight for causes. For this reason topics like this one must stay in Politicos.

The moderators of this site, in conjunction with its early members, made a firm pledge that local community news and events would take centre stage on SE23.life, but that any potentially-divisive debates would be segregated in order to avoid poisoning the positive atmosphere of our forum.

It’s a trade off that doesn’t always suit everyone, but overall it has worked well in the ten months we’ve been running.

Any non-partisan, non-political news and opinion on FHS should be shared liberally in the main forum, but political discussion must remain here.

There is no reason why this topic should get political - it’s solely about supporting a community school. I referred to “we” merely because I have signed up to this group as a member of the StopFHScuts group, and it may be me posting, or it may be another member of the group posting. We’re a group that’s been set up by concerned parents and we’re interested to know what’s being said on this forum, and moreover how this forum can support us, there’s nothing sinister about that. It’s absolutely not about “us and them”, we’re a group that’s formed to unite the SE23 community in helping Forest Hill School. This is absolutely about local community news and I can’t see why trying to find solutions to save a local community school would be divisive or poison the atmosphere of your forum? We have no political discussions or alliances as a group, our sole aim is to find a solution for our wonderful community school that is better than the one on the table. Therefore, I would request that you reconsider your stance with the other administrators. Thank you.

@anon5422159 will correct me if I’m wrong but I gather this topic is a splinter of one he started on who is to blame for FHS finances and for which he puts for his argument which is distinctly political. So sadly yes these issues seldom stay apolitical. The upside anyone can opt in.

Thanks @starman for bringing our attention to this thread - will check it out now

Thanks @starman for bringing this thread to my attention. It’s disgusting. I’m just disgusted. I’m flabbergasted that someone who runs a local forum and purports to be an SE23 ambassador can speak in such a manner about a campaign to save a local community school. This isn’t about politics, it’s about preserving the education of our local boys so that they’re able to have the best possible opportunities in adult life. The owner of a local forum shouldn’t be making this into a political issue, instead they should be working with the community to find alternative, better solutions

I do care about local schools and I do care about avoiding problems like this one in the future. So my interest was in finding the root cause first.

And I have worked towards this end, making no secret of my identity, and speaking on behalf of myself and not this forum (I am not an “ambassador”!).

I think it’s only fair we know who you are, and who the “we” is you claim to represent.

It is naive in the extreme to claim the existing Forest Hill campaign is apolitical. From what I’ve seen, this group has been started / co-opted by the local hard-Left, including a TUSC candidate and a number of socialists, all of which are anti-Tory and have tried to steer the discussion onto “Tory cuts” and away from the PFI contract.

Luckily people are now starting to realise that the PFI contract, costing nearly 10% of the annual budget, is far more likely to be the culprit than cuts under consultation, and capped at 3%. In fact the cuts haven’t even happened yet!

And if you want to protest changes to central government funding then yes - you are being political.

But if you want to propose constructive non-political ideas to help the school, then like I explained before, that is very welcome in the main forum.

The parents I know who are campaigning are definitely NOT wanting to make this into a political issue and are desperately trying to do the best for their school and their kids. It sounds like as you say that other political groups have got involved, but that is not the parents’ fault and we should be giving the parents as much support as we can, not giving more fuel to the political wrangles.

I really feel for the new Sept 2017 cohort of boys and their parents who found out their secondary school offer on 1 March, with all the excitement that brings, and then shortly afterwards this comes to light. This should be an exciting start to their next phase of education, not a battleground.

Chris I know you have strong political views which you laid out in the other thread and which you are perfectly entitled to. However in this instance I think we need to prioritise our energies into helping the community of FHS sort the situation out asap before it adversely affects the education of the children.

Regarding funding cuts.
The proposed changes to the national funding formula are one issue which as Chris correctly says have not yet been implemented.

However separate to this, I have read that schools are facing a funding crisis because of increased costs that are outstripping funding levels. There is an interesting report from the ONS which says:
“The Department estimates that mainstream schools will have to find savings of £3.0 billion (8.0%) by 2019-20 to counteract cumulative cost pressures…”
And
“The Department’s overall schools budget is protected in real terms but does not provide for funding per pupil to increase in line with inflation”
See full report here: https://www.nao.org.uk/report/financial-sustainability-in-schools/
(I haven’t read it all myself, just the summary)
So whether or not the funding formula changes go through, it looks like schools will be facing other financial struggles.

Regarding the FoI request (and not ignoring @Daffodil’s above points), I just got an update from the school:

Sounds like the council, or central govt is covering the capital repayment of the PFI contract?

That puts things in a very interesting light.

To conclude the PFI strand of this discussion I guess there needs to be a comparison of FM and energy costs as a percentage of funding against non PFI schools. Maybe an FOI of Sydenham Girls School?

You need schools benchmarking data for similar sized schools to compare cost breakdown. Mostly only accessible to schools and on subscription. The LA will review expenditure with the school regularly and governors are tasked with benchmarking too. What’s really strange about the FH school issue is that no one as far as I can tell has asked to meet or speak to the governors (of which the head is one because of role).

Looks like the new funding formula may be abandoned as their is yet another Tory rebellion from the back benches.