Harriett Baldwin has today won strong reassurance over Worcestershire school funding and a guarantee that there is no secret agenda to close or merge rural primary and middle schools. The promise, made by Schools Minister David Laws, confirmed that the changes in funding are not a plan to reduce the number of rural schools. He also announced that Worcestershire will play a central part in a nationwide review of funding changes as result of the lobbying by Harriett and her colleagues in Westminster. Harriett and colleagues raised concerns by a large number of local schools that the new funding plans left them with a cliff-edge of uncertainty. The Minister also confirmed that the Government is planning a review of the effects of funding changes immediately to make sure there is no negative impact on local schools. Speaking in the Westminster Hall debate, Harriett said that she had received a large number of letters from parents, teachers and governors concerned that the funding formula was ‘a deliberate attempt to close or merge primaries and move towards a system or large urban primary schools’. David Laws said: “We have heard a number of concerns about the requirement to have a single lump sum for primary, middle and secondary schools. “I realise that the implementation of these new simplified arrangements is causing anxiety amongst the schools in Worcestershire and that there are particular concerns about the impact that the changes will have on smaller and middle schools in rural areas such as Hanley Castle, Evesham, Pershore and Upton. “Officials in the department have been in contact with staff at Worcestershire County Council to understand why these concerns have arisen and to offer any advice that they can. “We remain committed to ensuring that good, small schools are able to thrive under the new arrangements. We know that small schools play a vital role in their communities and it is not our intention that any good school should be forced to close as a result if these reforms. “There is no secret agenda to close small successful schools and I hope she and her honorable friends will take that message back to their constituencies.” He continued: “We have decided to carry out thorough review in early 2013 starting now of the impact of the simplified funding factors. We are very clear that we want to prevent unacceptable consequences for good schools as a result of these changes and this is why a review will be so important and evaluating the effects will allow any necessary adjustments.” Harriett was joined by four of her Worcestershire county colleagues who all spoke during the debate. Speaking after the debate Harriett added: “I am grateful for the Minster for giving us a fair hearing and listening to the concerns of Worcestershire people. He gave reassurance in the debate that the Minimum Funding Guarantee will continue past 2015, which is welcome news. “I know that our rural schools will be pleased with the Ministers words of support, reassurance and his commitment that there is no secret agenda to close them. “This debate has delivered clear reassurance from the Minister that he is listening to Worcestershire’s concerns and I hope that this allays the concerns I have heard from teacher, parents and governors.” FULL TEXT: Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con): It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I should start by placing on record my interest in this matter as a governor and associate governor of Hallow primary school in my constituency for many years. Worcestershire is one of the lowest-funded counties in the country for education. It is 147th out of 151 for per pupil funding and a long-standing member of the f40 group. According to the National Governors Association, the guaranteed unit of funding for pupils in Birmingham is £5,689, yet in neighbouring Worcestershire it is only £4,601—a difference of 20%. That has been going on for years. Mrs Susan Warner, head teacher of Lindridge primary school, said to me in one of the many letters that I have received on the subject: “There is very little reasoning behind this unfair distribution and it appears to be purely historic, with no-one really understanding how the allocations were made in the first place.” Last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State signalled his intention to deal with the national unfairness of the school funding formula with “Consultation on School Funding Reform: Proposals on a Fairer Funding System”. That was welcome, but in an environment in which the overall school budget is only rising with inflation, it apparently will not be implemented this side of 2015. In the meantime, the Department has decided to simplify the allocation formula for the direct schools grant, replacing the outdated and unfair national formula with a clearer one by reducing the number of allowable factors from 40 to a maximum of 12. The principle of a single flat amount per pupil in each stage of education from primary to sixth form makes sense. It is intuitive and, given that 80% to 85% of the cost of each school place relates to the salaries of teachers whose rates are set nationally, it makes sense to have a per pupil amount of funding that is broadly the same nationally. Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important and useful debate for the county of Worcestershire. She talks about the ratio of staff costs being 80% to 85%, but in Wyre Forest we see that rising as high as 95% as more experienced staff go up the internal pay scale. That puts even more pressure on schools locally to try to perform with these very limited budgets. Harriett Baldwin: I thank my honourable constituency neighbour for that observation. Staff costs certainly form by far the largest part of a school budget. It makes sense to have money follow the pupil, as that gives a clear signal to schools that they will do better if they can attract more pupils. The pupil premium, which has been welcomed at £600 per pupil on free school meals, will be even more welcome in Worcestershire when it is increased from 2013 by 50% and set at £900 per pupil. As the pupil premium now links to the pupil level the concept of income deprivation, it stands to reason that the main pupil funding allocation should be set more equally at national level as well. If the pupil premium is a national amount, why should not the main per pupil amount be more equal, too? Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con): I thank my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. I want simply to strengthen her case by pointing out that Gloucestershire has the same argument as her own county. We, too, are underfunded compared with, say, Bristol. That is obviously unfair, and we need a national approach to the matter. Harriett Baldwin: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the examples in Stroud. If, as the formula seems to do, we move closer to a per pupil amount across the county of Worcestershire without making any correction to the national unfairness, we shall run into a crucial problem. Small, mainly rural primary schools form an integral part of the fabric of county life in a dispersed constituency such as mine. Where distances are large and sparsity is high, we find that the village school is the focus and beating heart of the village. Rural schools are likely to have fewer children on free school meals, for a couple of reasons. There is a lower chance of meals being served and a much higher chance of the possible social stigma being known, and there is therefore lower take-up. Those schools thus miss out on the pupil premium, as can be seen from the fact that Worcestershire has just over 1% of the pupils on roll in England, but less than three quarters of 1% of the pupil premium for 2012-13. Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. She has made the case admirably for the small rural schools in her constituency, but she will be aware that some of the smaller schools in my constituency, which are urban schools and receive quite a lot of pupil premium, are also negatively affected by the changes. Does she agree that for the Government’s pupil premium policy to work and for their funding reforms to work really well, we need fairer funding on an underlying basis to make progress? Harriett Baldwin: I do agree. How lucky my hon. Friend’s constituents are to have such a tireless champion and voice for fairer funding for Worcestershire. Today, I ask the Minister to allow the county council to have more sector-variable lump sums that can be set locally. Some flexibility at local level is essential. Small rural primary schools are a priority for Worcestershire county council and it has a democratic mandate to take that approach. In addition, it is in its interest to do so, as travel and building costs would rise sharply if there were a consolidation of the smaller local primary schools. Furthermore, parts of Worcestershire support a middle school system, and the local authority should have some flexibility to reflect that. I welcome the Minister’s letter of last week, confirming that there is a minimum funding guarantee extended out to 2015—a per pupil guarantee of minus 1.5%—which will help to moderate the impact of the changes up to 2015. However, Worcestershire needs more flexibility—it needs more money. More flexibility over a lump sum from the local authority could insulate small rural schools from too much fluctuation. Even after that guarantee, a school such as Eldersfield primary in my constituency would have a 5.5% fall in its budget by 2015, despite educating each child to an excellent standard for a frugal £3,523 per child. I have so far been contacted by primary schools in the villages of Castlemorton, Martley, Broadwas, Grimley and Holt, Clifton-upon-Teme, Astley and Hallow, Great Witley, Eldersfield, Lindridge, Kempsey and Pendock, many of which have asked whether the funding formula is a deliberate attempt to close or merge village primaries and move towards a system of larger urban primary schools. Will the Minister please assure the dedicated teachers and governors and the parents of children at those rural primary schools that there is no such policy and that the value of village primary schools to their communities is fully recognised by the Government? I hope that the Minister can also resolve the funding problem. Village schools should be considered unviable only if they do not attract pupils on a sustainable basis. Allowing local authorities, such as Worcestershire county council, to have a larger amount to use as a flexible lump sum to support those valuable schools would allow them to continue to serve the large rural areas that still make up such a large part of Worcestershire and, indeed, England. | Hansard