During the past 30 years, there have been three periods when school funding has been described as being in crisis, although the use of that term was less apposite on the two previous occasions than it is in 2017.

In the mid 1990s, the Major government made a deliberate decision to cut expenditure on public services and spending per pupil fell in real terms.

With local management of schools (LMS) having been introduced in 1990, school leaders were much less experienced in budget management than they are now and they - and some of their staff - learned the hard way that if too much of the budget was spent on staffing, the only way to make cuts was through staff redundancies.

While post-16 colleges have faced a continuing squeeze on their budgets, schools have been relatively well protected since 1990, with the only big difficulty coming in 2003 when Department for Education officials failed to model the effect on individual schools of several simultaneous funding changes.

Some headteachers were caught unawares, with their budgets being adversely affected by the combination of changes, albeit at a time when school funding was generally on the increase.

‘Serious consequences’ of reduced funding

In a report in February 2017, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) highlighted the relative funding positions of schools and colleges, with spending on further education (FE) falling by 6.7 per cent between 2010-11 and 2015-16, and a further drop of 6.5 per cent expected over the next few years. Funding for 16- to 18-year-olds is at the same level as it was almost 30 years ago.

Schools have done much better since 1990, according the IFS, with £4,900 currently spent on each primary school pupil and £6,300 spent per secondary student being double, in real terms, the amount spent in the mid 1990s.

Now facing an 8 per cent real terms cut, the school funding situation will have serious consequences for the provision of education in many parts of the country.

George Osborne’s austerity policy, pursued in education by his successor, chancellor Philip Hammond, is coming home to roost for schools, although not for Mr Osborne himself as he takes his fourth well-paid job in addition to being an MP. “We’re all in it together” was clearly never intended to apply to Mr Osborne himself.

It is the figures, not the words, that demonstrate most clearly the direction of government policy. Ministers’ speeches about raising educational standards and increasing social mobility are no more than hollow words unless the funding is provided for schools to do the job.

Social and economic policy need to be in alignment if public services are to operate at the constantly improving level that politicians, media and the public demand. 

High priority matched by resources

When Tony Blair said in 1997 that the top three priorities of the incoming Labour government would be “Education, education, education”, that was a signal that the Treasury would provide increased resources for schools in order that schools - and the government - could deliver on the prime minister’s promises.

Of course, we very soon realised that the high priority given to education would bring with it increased government interference and greater media attention. But the social policy priority given to education was matched by increased revenue and capital resources. 

With the National College for School Leadership playing a strong role and local authorities being gradually marginalised, the notion of a school-led system gradually began to take root.

Academies, which had been standalone schools put under new sponsors, were complemented by chains and later trusts - groups of schools working under shared leadership.

Alongside this policy framework enabling stronger partnership working between schools, the pupil premium, which has all-party support, has provided real financial support to the work of schools in raising the attainment of disadvantaged children and closing the gap with their more fortunate peers.

The Education Endowment Foundation, Education Datalab and thinktanks such as the Education Policy Institute are providing the evidential basis on which schools can most effectively spend this funding.

Schools working in strong partnerships and the additional money for educating disadvantaged students are positive developments on the social policy side. Now, however, it is the lack of alignment between this social policy and the increasingly dangerous economic policy that is putting at risk the good work of school partnerships and evidence-informed pupil premium strategies.

Desperate measures to balance the books

With an average 8 per cent funding reduction, schools will be tempted to raid the pupil premium budget in order to balance the books elsewhere, putting at risk the undoubted progress made in provision for disadvantaged children. Multi-academy trusts (MATs) will be unable to allocate resources to essential areas of development.

It is, of course, possible that the government does not really believe in its stated social policies and that the funding cuts are happening because the prime minister and her cabinet give a lower priority to the success of the state education system. But Justine Greening doesn’t seem to be a secretary of state who would hold those views.

If, however, the government really means what it says about school standards and social mobility, it needs to provide more resources for schools to meet the cost increases they are facing, which are the main cause of the 8 per cent cut.

Economic policy and social policy are badly out of alignment and those who suffer most will be the young people going through their schooling over the next five years, for whom there will be no second chance.

John Dunford is chair of Whole Education, a former secondary head, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders and national pupil premium champion. His book, The School Leadership Journey, was published in November 2016. He tweets as @johndunford

For more TES columns by John, visit his back catalogue

Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow TES on Twitter and like TES on Facebook