Last month I wrote of the complexities surrounding the allocation of funds to schools. Since then there has been a continuing stream of media interest reporting claim and counter-claim by the Government, the employers and teachers' unions about responsibility for the mess ('Short changed', 24 April).
On 16 May the education secretary, Charles Clarke, said he was now going to allow schools in England to use previously ring-fenced allocations for building and maintenance for general spending. This, he said, would reduce the possibility of teacher redundancies. But he did not mention teaching assistants or nursery nurses, or say if it would be enough to enable schools to implement the new workload agreement due to be introduced in the autumn.
All the headteachers I spoke to said they would be unable to implement the agreement, and that they would have to either reduce hours or post redundancy notices. Those most seriously affected would be those that had genuinely lost money because of falling rolls.
But discussion about the agreement has evaporated. No-one mentions it. Yet it is an important feature of Government policy. It is vital that nursery nurses and teaching assistants know how they will be affected, both in terms of their work and their salaries. It isn't good enough for the Government, local authorities or headteachers to avoid the discomfort of any discussion about the effects. Why is there silence about this policy, which a short time ago was being presented as a major step forward to reduce pressures on teachers, and utilise and reward the high level of skill among support staff?
Will all schools be able to implement the new agreement? If not, what will the Government, employers and teachers' unions do? How will teaching assistants and nursery nurses be affected by changes in their work and levels of pay? Will there be redundancies or changes in terms and conditions of service? And how will children be affected, especially those with special educational needs?
