Rural vs. Urban Funding Conflicts

Abstract

The funding of England's schools, like so much of our education system at the moment under a new government, is a matter of hot debate. And the rural dimension is one important aspect, which becomes particularly interesting when you consider how England voted at the last general election in May. The election, which was the closest since the 1970s, saw no party winning an overall majority and thus the Conservatives and the centrist Liberal Democrats taking over from Labour as a ruling coalition. If you look at a map showing how the nation voted, the two governing parties dominate Parliamentary seats outside the big cities especially in the south of England. Labour's core vote is in the inner cities. In recent years, however, when it comes to school funding, those in urban areas--which tend to have more Labour voters--have been better off. Will this change under the new coalition government? You might expect so, given the reality of how politics works, but it is by no means clear what's going to happen to funding for England's schools. To understand why, I will need to explain something about our funding system. But beware: This may not be for the fainthearted, as funding does tend to be complicated. English System Now, unlike in the United States, the funding of schools in England is more or less a national system, with the bulk of cash allocations decided centrally according to complex rules overseen from London. Local councils have some powers to vary the cash their schools receive under the funding formula, but only at the margins. And, since the current calculation mechanism began life in the 1990s, rural areas, in particular, have been complaining because they tend to be the losers. A list of the most well-funded local school authorities in England is dominated by those in inner London, with the top 50 of the country's 150 council areas almost entirely made up of urban districts. By contrast, the 50 lowest funded mainly comprise those serving schools in small towns and the countryside. The differences can be huge: Average perchild funding in Camden in central London is more than double what it is in North Somerset in England's South West, according to one government spreadsheet I've been studying. Traditionally, the funding formula has given weight to deprivation. With deprivation higher in the cities, this helps explain why schools in these areas have in the past tended to be better funded. Schools in London are also given extra funds to reflect higher living costs. Also, during its 13 years in power, Labour undoubtedly channeled extra money toward inner cities through specific grants targeting complex urban issues. Whether any of these disparities is about to be redressed depends on the impact of changes that have been given a huge amount of attention during the early period of this government, and that are part of the new regime's attempt to be seen as doing more to help students from poor backgrounds achieve. Under the plans, the main part of school budgets will continue to be calculated through existing national formulas. However, on top of this, for the first time the government will provide a set amount of money specifically for the education of each child who qualifies as disadvantaged. …