Oops_my_bad Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 Labour's £2bn cuts for schools - Times Online Last one out... turn off the lights
russdev Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 To be fair it was expected it will be interesting to see where the cuts will be made etc. Russ
tech_guy Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 And here it is on the BBC site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8265166.stm We're all gonna get shafted - what a load of balls.....
leco Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 On the other hand not much money would be saved by sacking us - we don't get paid enough:D
tech_guy Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Listen - can you hear that sound? It's the sound of RM rubbing its hands together at the thought of all those NMs and Techs that are going to get the chop and the support contracts they're going to win.....
localzuk Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Do they really think schools keep on random unneeded staff? Budgets are thin enough as it is. You know what would save a lot of money? Scrapping BSF...
torledo Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 don't worry folks, some of you may be too young to remember the neoliberal cycle in action. It goes something like this.....debt financed good times, booming stock market, skyrocketing house prices, budget surplus, rising houshold debt, easy credit. then ..... woops apocalypse credit squeeze, consumer retreats, recession, govt. deficit, signs of recovery, dash for assets, debt hysteria, SPENDING CUTS. rinse and repeat once every 10-15 years. We are currently at the prelude to the SPENDING CUTS stage, what follows the cuts is the return to 'debt financed good times.' eventually. The only spanner in the works is if you stumble upon the lesser spotted 'TURN JAPANESE' phase. then it's KEEP SPENDING and 0% INTEREST RATES FOR-EVER.
Theblacksheep Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Do they really think schools keep on random unneeded staff? Budgets are thin enough as it is. You know what would save a lot of money? Scrapping BSF... No, no, dont be silly.... public money must go to private companies and in turn shareholders, not schools and staff. 2
russdev Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 If you read articles most of talk is reducing senior staff and most of that through natural wastage. The thing is what you found the cuts have already been happening as lot of LAs have got a freeze on hiring new staff unless there is a real case for it. Russ 3
Quackers Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 They could save the money and more if they just stopped BSF. Thats a cash eating monster.
localzuk Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 If you read articles most of talk is reducing senior staff and most of that through natural wastage. The thing is what you found the cuts have already been happening as lot of LAs have got a freeze on hiring new staff unless there is a real case for it. Russ What senior staff? Seriously, do schools have random SMT members hanging about or something? I have not come across a school with that sort thing, ever... I think his idea of senior staff wastage only works if you tie it with the hard federation idea. ie. one SMT for a fleet of schools instead of multiple SMTs. So what he's actually intending to do is remove a large number of experienced, skilled and knowledgable people from jobs that many do well, by removing the number of head teachers, deputy heads and the like needed in each LA. There's generally a reason schools each have an SMT of their own - because every school is different, and every school has its own workload for those people to do...
cookie_monster Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 (edited) localzuk Do they really think schools keep on random unneeded staff? Budgets are thin enough as it is. You know what would save a lot of money? Scrapping BSF... I agree I remember reading recently that each project is coming in at between 20-30% over budget and due to the current climate private companies are becoming less willing to make the investments. BSF in it's curent form is going to be chopped very early in the next term in my opinion. russdev If you read articles most of talk is reducing senior staff and most of that through natural wastage. The thing is what you found the cuts have already been happening as lot of LAs have got a freeze on hiring new staff unless there is a real case for it Most LA's policies on redundancy involve natural wastage so it will probably just involve an employment freeze. Edited September 20, 2009 by cookie_monster
john Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 We had to make a member of SLT redundant where I work, and have done the staff wastage thing and non-teaching and teaching redundancy, we are now an incredibly trimmed workforce with no-one extra really at all. It affected ICT as we lost a tech
CyberNerd Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 We had to make a member of SLT redundant where I work, and have done the staff wastage thing and non-teaching and teaching redundancy, we are now an incredibly trimmed workforce with no-one extra really at all. It affected ICT as we lost a tech and that's before the govt cuts. If Labour will cut £2bn, imagine what the Tories would do !
PiqueABoo Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 (edited) BSF in it's curent form is going to be chopped very early in the next term in my opinion. A while back I posted about a (right-wing think tank) paper on BSF. One of the reasons was because i reckon the Labour gov will be history by next summer. What the Tories think *is* what is going to matter.. and only two weeks ago: Local authorities have spent £170 million on consultants in a government scheme to refurbish and rebuild schools in England, the Conservatives say. They say the £50 billion Building Schools for the Future programme has delivered "hardly any improvements". The Schools Secretary Ed Balls defended the scheme and accused the Conservatives of planning to make cuts. My emphasis. The Tories will probably do some things I don't like, but if they set about nuking some of the real bureacrats, quangos and bottomless-pit big IT projects I won't complain. Edited September 20, 2009 by PiqueABoo
torledo Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 My emphasis. The Tories will probably do some things I don't like, but if they set about nuking some of the real bureacrats, quangos and bottomless-pit big IT projects I won't complain. well said. The problem is, and it's a real problem from what i've witnessed, a lot of these beuracrats and beneficiaries of this spend via the non-jobs created can't do much else. Their whole existence relies on talking a good game, attending meetings, and general time wastage.....they certainly don't have much if anything in the way of transferrable skills.
Theblacksheep Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 What the Tories think *is* what is going to matter.. The same Tories that used to sell off anything that didnt already have a brand on it? Chances of them backout of of these long term systematic changes that benifit business... 0
sparkeh Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 The same Tories that used to sell off anything that didnt already have a brand on it? Chances of them backout of of these long term systematic changes that benifit business... 0 This is based on what? The Conservatives have been making anti-BSF noises for while now and being quite vocal in opposition. Only last week at the PfS conference their adviser on the subject said "The conservatives recognise the need to “renovate” the school estate BUT we are not committed to the same structures, amounts or processes" Interestingly even the PfS CEO Tim Byles wasn't too upbeat about the future of BSF and described it as “economically tight and politically uncertain”.
CyberNerd Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Does anybody know what £2bn is in real terms? Roughly what would that work out per-pupil? (how many uk pupils are there) Given that there are 3500 secondary schools, it does work out to over £1/2M per school, I can't see how cutting Managerial positions would even get close.
PiqueABoo Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 I can't see how cutting Managerial positions would even get close. That part isn't supposed to, if you read the article at the other end of the OPs link : "Officials believe about 3,000 senior school jobs could go, mainly through “natural wastage”, saving the department about £250m a year".
cookie_monster Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Given that there are 3500 secondary schools, it does work out to over £1/2M per school, I can't see how cutting Managerial positions would even get close. So about half of the average secondary budget then ouch!!!
dalsoth Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 I can only pray they fire my headteacher and the other 7 deputies and assistant heads who got the jobs a year after qualifying.
srochford Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 The Conservatives have been making anti-BSF noises for while now and being quite vocal in opposition. Only last week at the PfS conference their adviser on the subject said "The conservatives recognise the need to “renovate” the school estate BUT we are not committed to the same structures, amounts or processes" I suspect the Conservatives will throw away the bit of BSF that could be good (spending money on new buildings) and keep the bit that is bad (out-sourcing everything to private companies). I heard an interview with George Osborne a couple of weeks ago in which he was talking about the way money could be saved by outsourcing more things in schools (I think he was particularly talking about teachers but I'm not sure how that would work; outsourcing pretty much all support is easy to do but doesn't necessarily give good results)
torledo Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 I suspect the Conservatives will throw away the bit of BSF that could be good (spending money on new buildings) and keep the bit that is bad (out-sourcing everything to private companies). Meanwhile..... Balls said that while teachers’ pay was set by an independent body, he was keen to ensure wage rises in the next three-year deal starting in 2011 were kept low. that sounds more tory than the tories. Perhaps you've got a bit of an outdated understanding of the actual differences between the main parties ?
somabc Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 (edited) All the parties want to cut Public Spending, they have no choice the country is heading towards bankruptcy. We will only really find out where after the next election. G7 Countries - external gross debt/GDP ratios, 2003Q2 - 2008 Q2 http://www.spectator.co.uk/article_images/articledir_6156/3078296/1_fullsize.bmp The true extent of Britain's debt [The Spectator] National Debt Counter UK 185th Country in the World by Current Account Balance $ -44,960,000,000 (2008 est.) [CIA World Fact Book] Edited September 20, 2009 by somabc
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now