Skip to main content

Tories failing our children


Schools in England are struggling. A decade of underfunding means that 83% of schools have financial difficulties.


In 2015, David Cameron promised that his Tory Government would continue to protect school funding. They didn't deliver.

During the 2017 election, Theresa May promised to spend £4bn more. She failed to deliver.


And now, Boris Johnson promises to level up school funding and ensure there are no more winners and losers. Why should we trust him after a decade of failure to live up to the promises?


These are the realities that Brexit hides. Our children's futures are being damaged by short-sighted cuts in funding.

Unless something is done, our schools will be reeling from a £1.3bn funding shortfall in 2022/23. Our schools will face the most significant funding crisis in a generation.

Let's put this another way.

Since 2015 the average amount spent on a pupil has fallen from £5,000 a year to just under £4,700.

In England’s primary school, children are taught in the largest classes since the year 2000.

Our children are being let down badly. In Secondary schools, the number of children taught in classes over 30 is at its highest since 1981!

The Tories are failing our children and putting their futures at risk. It makes little educational sense, but nor does it make economic sense. Businesses are crying out for better-educated school leavers.

Teacher shortages, large classes, crumbling schools and shortage of educational materials. We are back in the darkest days of the 1980s.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As