John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): The right hon. Gentleman is making a very good point. Certainly in Wokingham, which has very low per-pupil amounts and good-performing schools, we feel there is a problem. Was not the idea of the reform to have a higher absolute amount for every pupil in the country, because there is a basic cost wherever you are being educated?
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (Lib Dem): Yes, indeed. The right hon. Gentleman makes the important point that it is not a question of just having a basic amount of funding, but we need an evidence base for what the cost of running a school actually is. I worry that as the formula is currently devised, there is no evidence base. Wild guesses have been made about the differential costs of secondary and primary schooling, and we need objective studies of what it costs to run a school, so that the formula can work well.
July 4, 2017
This is an illuminating section of the debate.
That primary schools get less per pupil has always struck me as odd.
The funding formula may not need to be revised per pupil. Schools of certain sizes could just be given an amount of money to run.
With our current population explosion there is little reason for any school not to be full.
Reply Secondary schools offer a wider range of subjects requiring more specialist teachers, and have more expensive facilities like labs.
July 7, 2017
Wokingham is amongst five of the most poorly funded areas in England http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-31871139 Parents in Wokingham have been supplementing school budgets through voluntary contributions, PTA fund raising, volunteering in classes and more but there are now many families who cannot afford to make extra contributions to a state education that should be fully funded through taxation.