28/04/2017 Westminster Hall

Order, order. Do you move the motion? I'm very pleased to have

secured this very important debate, albeit... Sitting on the session. I

know many of my constituents are very concerned but also those of my

fellow MPs from across the north-east who are in attendance

today in some numbers, I'm pleased to say. Some could not be here

today, including my fellow MPs, members for Horton and Sunderland

sale. The honourable member for Tynemouth, who has raised concerns

with the Minister, following a meeting he had with headteachers in

his area, he is very concerned about the effect on his constituency in

Tynemouth and he asked me to convey his apologies as he really did want

to be here but had to be elsewhere. I also want to thank my honourable

friend for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, who has done a lot

of work over recent months to raise awareness of our collective concerns

about the governments's negligent approach to schools in our region

and I have to add that she will be sorely missed 20 steps down from

this place next week, both by us, his regional colleagues, as well as

I know by his constituents. I'm free and on pleased to see him in his

place today. We are a passionate advocate for the education of

children and young people and it is safe to say that education,

education, education is a mantra that we still believe in. Sadly, we

have seen this Government run roughshod over an education system

and our local schools by putting them in an unprecedented position

which not only in action and support schools but actually cuts which are

fundamentally detrimental to the very by ability of some schools

continuing. That may very viability. In my contribution this morning, you

want to set out with this approach is damaging to education. -- why

this approach. To do this, I will get free areas the national

situation, moving on to how the national situation is affecting

schools in my constituency in the north-east, and finally how the

approach to the education system is affecting the very nature of our

schools. The very purpose of schools is to educate our children and

address societal issues such as address societal issues such as

children in poverty and social mobility. Before I get to the crux

of why I have called this debate, I can already predict perhaps what the

minister might say in his contribution at the end of this

debate, who just like the Prime Minister, what he said a few weeks

ago, that he Government have rejected them are protected the

schools budget. We know that is not the case. There is a failure to

recognise that our schools are facing real cuts, not cash cuts. It

is deeply disingenuous to say that they have protected the budget. It

is like paying public sector workers the same as they pay in seven years

ago and saying they protected their salaries. Hang on a minute, they

have done that as well. He's real term, so mainly down to inflation,

but also for other areas, areas as well for the link was, include

increases in an RA, pensions, the services grant, which have reduced

funding by ?600 million. The cost of annual pay awards, which will

increase by 4.4% by 2020 and finally the impact that the apprenticeship

levy will have on schools that take on apprentices. Much of this would

not be a problem if the Government was not overseeing a static funding

situation for our schools, where babies are real term cuts now range

between 6.5% and 8%. On top of all this, growing concerns about what

the new schools funding formula will do to school budgets and the issue

of staff retention which is in dire need of an uplift. We can easily

come to the conclusion that what we're seeing is a complete,

negligent, risk management, perfect storm. Instead of coming to terms

with these issues, we have seen the Government shove their heads in the

sand and on regardless, ignoring what many in society, from MPs

across the house to teachers and parents themselves, what they are

calling for which is support for our education system to ensure that we

have options. As the Public Accounts Committee recently said in the

report about school cuts, the Government, and I quote, does not

seem to understand the pressures that schools are already under. End

quote. This is something I completely agree with and feel

frustrated that ministers are ignoring the concerns of a wide

cross-section of society on this matter. Even school leaders, who are

the ones who know their budgets the nose, as well as NAHT, say 22%

budgets are untenable by 2019-2020. This is not something that comes as

a surprise. The Department for Education expect schools to make ?3

billion of savings per year by 2019-2020. It is safe to say that

this ?3 billion cut, which is what it is, it is a cart, the savings.

The funding pressure schools face and the action -- cut. Needs to

headteachers having to make impossible decisions, some of which

will smugly impact negatively on the pupils and their education, all

because of what the minister is doing, are not new doing. -- will

surely impact negatively. It is nothing to do with efficiency, it is

all about impoverishing our schools. Shamefully, this approach will hit

children living in the poorest areas the nose, such as in those parts of

my constituency and those of my fellow MPs from across the house.

Especially in the north-east, we all have deprived communities in our

constituencies. That means more and more children will be held back in

life, when we should be supporting them to achieve social mobility and

achieve their full potential. As I stated at the beginning of my

contribution, I know this issue is something that many of my

constituents and teachers in my constituency are concerned about. It

is not surprising libido till budget cuts by 2019 across the city of

Sunderland, they are expected to be over ?60 million, in terms of her

pupils then, that is an average cut of ?470 per pupil. A loss of 439

teachers across the borough of Sunderland.

One of the worst hit primary schools will see a budget cut of over

?150,000. The average cut is ?103,000, which is still a huge cut.

The headmaster set out in an e-mail to me clearly, and that e-mail has

been sent on to the Secretary of State for Education, what the extent

of these funding pressures will mean for his school, from potential staff

redundancies to the impact on his pupils' education. It's not just

him, but many other headteachers across Sunderland who have expressed

similar concerns. These concerns were reflected in a meeting held in

Sunderland recently with around 30 head teachers and school governors,

who all agreed our schools are in a crisis point. This led to me

securing this debate today. The genuine worries of those head

teachers and school governors were real, and it showed just how

concerned they were about the education of the next generation. I

have never, in all my 12 years as an MP, been in a situation where

headteachers are expressing the gravity of their concerns. If the

Minister had been at that meeting, he would've had his eyes truly

opened to the extent of his actions. One head teacher from Sunderland

said that if they did not see any support from the government for

their school, it would mean losing five teachers, which would mean they

are not like legal regarding the pupil to teacher ratio. The true

scale of this issue was described extremely well by another

headteacher at the meeting, he said that balancing the budget had always

been hard, under successive governments. But these cuts would be

impossible to achieve, she said. She ended by saying, this cannot be

done. No joke, not kidding or exaggerating. Following that

meeting, a joint letter from headteachers in our region, and some

of the members are here today from that part of the region, the letter

appealed to parents to make their voices heard to the government

regarding this. I am proud to stand with my local headteachers and

school governors and parents, who are deeply concerned about this

issue and urge the Minister to rethink his disastrous plans, which

will affect the lives of children and young people across the

north-east and other parts of England. To help the Minister along,

I will beat him an extract of the letter to parents, to help them

understand what is happening on the ground. I think this is

unprecedented for teachers across the labourers to get together and

write to parents in this way. I quote, school leaders in a region

have endeavoured to make every conceivable cut to our spending, but

are now faced with reducing basic services still further, alter the

disadvantage of your child.". Teachers do not go into this

provision to make life hard for children and to make cuts, they do

it because they want to help transform the lives of all children,

especially those who need extra support the most. But what we're

seeing is the exact opposite, all do to this government's shocking

failures. As someone who has campaigned for 12 years to improve

the lives of children are junk people, especially those living in

poverty, I feel to see how the current actions of this government,

when it comes to education system, will help alleviate any issues of

child poverty and disadvantage in our society. Thank you for giving

way and for calling this debate. The points she is making about education

in deprived areas and social mobility. The comprehensive school I

went to has announced it will be cutting 24 staff posts, including

three teachers. The headteacher says she is making every effort to make

sure that does not impact on their learning experience, but which my

honourable friend agree with me that, at a time when we need to

enhance the skills of the future of every child depends on that

education, and social mobility and social equality is such an issue,

that to be cutting education in this way cannot be accepted? I totally

agree. Education is a critical way of reducing poverty in society. It

equips children and young people with the knowledge and tools to get

on in life, but also the best schools inspire them to go on and

achieve their dreams. In the north-east, this is crucial, where

we see an extra 132,000 children living in entrenched, generational

poverty. That is why these cuts are deeply worrying to those of us who

represent seats in the north-east, as the children we represent need

the service. Poverty impacts the attainment of children in our

society, and this was clearly documented in 2015, when GCSE

results were analysed, and assured that 36.7% of disadvantaged pupils

received five a to C grades, compared with 64.7% of all pupils.

In this country, that is a strong correlation between parental social

background and children's test scores, compared with other

developed countries, where this is less the case. This is compounded by

the fact that children from some of England's most disadvantaged areas

are 27 times more likely to go to an inadequate school than a child

living in one of the least deprived areas. That's why it is important

that schools are used as a conduit to alleviate some of the issues

children in poverty face and make sure they get the best start in life

full top poverty is not inevitable, we don't need to see poverty in our

society. What poverty tells us is we have failed to address the issues

which cause poverty, due to a lack of political will, in midst of

thinking and a drive to act. -- innovative thinking and a drive to

act. We are seeing further separation and divisions caused.

This is seen quite plainly in the government's pet project, where they

plan to pump billions of taxpayers money into grammar schools and the

ruling out more free schools and academies. Instead of supporting

what parents and teachers are calling for, which is to fund

schools properly. This is being brought to light just today in the

publication this morning, of the Public Accounts Committee's report,

calling the policy wasteful, spending over the odds on new

schools and free school places in areas where demand is not needed.

Why can't we take some of this wasteful money that the Public

Accounts Committee, it is cross-party, they know what they're

talking about, and use it to mitigate these terrible funding cuts

are schools are facing. The Minister must rethink his and his

department's approach to education, for the sake of the children who

live in my constituency, but also those of other MPs across the

north-east. Our education system should be funded fully and fairly,

so they can not only educate our children, but use their power to

help improve our society also. I hope the Minister will listen to

this debate and take all other concerns into consideration,

especially those of teachers and parents. Investing in education is

investing in our children's and in Britain's future. Those children in

the classroom today are our future workforce, who will take our country

on to greater things, if only be give them the chance to do so.

Failing to support them now would be to Strasse is -- disastrous for our

future and will almost order problems. I hope he understands what

this means and will go back to officials following this debate and

consider his approach to funding our schools. Our children deserve no

less. This house has considered school funding in the north-east of

England. I'm looking at how many members are looking to speak in the

debate. We have about 50 minutes. I have six members. I think we can

work out for ourselves, it's about eight minutes. If you can keep

within that time, that would be really helpful. I will call and Mary

Trevelyan next. It is an honour to be able to speak on this last day

and I congratulate my honourable colleague from Sunderland for

securing this debate. But it is disappointing not to hear, while

talking about school funding, some of the impressive improvements we

have seen across the north-east. There have been some really

impressive things going on around the region, children really getting

the benefit of the improvements we have seen through the education

framework, to hone in on what is important and make sure children are

getting the very best possible education, right from those early

years, all the way through. Speaking as the member for

Berwick-upon-Tweed, right up in the northern reaches of our region, we

have perhaps a different set of challenges to many of the colleagues

here today, in that I have very many small schools, for none of whom the

pressures are challenges on places, it is about transport and staying

open, when they have small numbers and erratic numbers of children. The

arrival of Ofsted can be really good in one year and not so good in

others, because it varies so much. In Berwick itself, we have one high

school, which the Minister visited some years ago. We were very pleased

to welcome him there. The challenge we have now is that this school has

a fixed cost, as all schools do, with a sixth form. The next school

is 30 miles away, and if you are choosing college rather than 61, the

challenges 60 or 70 miles away, a very long way from Berwick. The

challenge is to make sure we can maintain the full provision of

education in that far-flung school, right up on that Scottish border.

What I would pitch, if I may, on this last day before we head into

the election madness that will follow, is that one of the things

department is to be thinking about more fully is how to use the budget

more effectively and how we encourage schools to use modern

online learning tools, thereby needing eight capital investment to

do so, so the children in these schools, how come these children

access the high-tech learning skills they need, so they can work in

industries which the north-east is growing and becoming world leading.

I would challenge the Minister to think about how we actually change

the nature of the education we give our children, to have a number of

pupils to teacher ratio is important in the younger ages, but as you go

up their age groups, the opportunity to draw an excellent education from

around the world. My son has recently been teaching himself to

write computer code, because that was something of interest, use a

Stamford University online tool. It was free, but what he needed was a

computer and broadband. Begin now speak on this very strange language

and he can do stuff at school. This was not available to him at school,

he was doing it off his own bat. Access to those sorts of tools,

they're not expensive, they require less technical investment. The

encouragement to schools to think more broadly about how we use

funding. The children can jump in terms of their attainment, so that

we can be world leaders. Thank you for giving way. Online learning and

the transformative impact of digital technology, which you agree with me

that the government's plans for a universal service obligations for

broadband by 2020 are far too little and far too late? I support and have

campaigned, as you know, very hard to make sure we got back into the

digital economy Bill. Speaking as someone for whom one megabyte is a

good day for us. It is still a challenge, but we're getting there

and I think we have kicked the system into a more proactive

premise. I agree that getting that across-the-board is absolutely

vital. It will be no bid to my constituents to see Newcastle with

super fast at 100 megabytes, that are still good to us, because we

still can't download a basic bow to do all right. We do need to make

sure that spreads across the nation to every home. Talking about one

other thing that she raised, which was about the levy that is is

proving further small schools in Northumberland to be a problem.

Councils have been given the freedom to pass that levy fee on, but for a

small school, where a bill for several thousand pounds has appeared

a few weeks ago, that small school was not good to take up the

opportunity of an apprenticeship. Local authorities in my area have

suffered tens of thousands, tens of millions of pounds worth of carts.

They expect them to pick that up or should be Government offer a

concession in that area and do away with it for schools? I think the

honourable member for his intervention. The question is how it

is used. As far as I'm concerned, there are many schools, many larger

schools for whom the levy is a reasonable price to pay because they

will have the opportunity to benefit from reaching out for a apprentices

and increasing a cohort of staff in that way, but we need to be a bit

more flexible and encourage councils to think more constructively in how

they charge that levy. Of course. I thank the honourable lady forgiving

way. I never constituents, constituency angiography speaks well

for the schools within two great effect. On the levy, I heard records

in primary school mentioned, the headteacher mentioned the cuts he

has to make me. He has been touch with me this morning to say this has

already started and today, any has already had to tell his apprentice,

Liam, that he will have to let him go because of apprenticeship levy.

This is exactly the point that my friend back is making. This just

seems ludicrous. Because he now has to pay however many thousands of

pounds in the apprenticeship levy, he cannot keep the apprentice. He

said the apprentice was excelling himself in his apprenticeship. Does

she agree that this really needs to be looked at? I thank the honourable

member for her intervention. One of the challenges I found as a new MP

here is that the policy is a good one, but delivering it on the ground

and making sure a simple phrasing of words anyway it has been setup does

not negate common-sense thinking, which means this school is happy to

pay into the levy port but they happen to already have an apprentice

and that does not mean they should be excluded by a programme going

forward. I hope, at a local level, that can be resolved rather than

just being considered and impossible, insoluble problem

because of the sort of issues that would never have been intended in

the policy. One last issue, speaking as a member of the Public Accounts

Committee on a report that has been published yesterday, some of the

challenges of how free school money has been spent, there is a great

amount of good work going on there. In Berwick-upon-Tweed, we are

looking to create an autism school because there is an enormous gap

across the north-east, particularly in rural areas, but across the

north-east for provision for our autistic children. I revert to my

computer geeks son, whose as burgers get mentioned more than he was like

in Hansard these days, but we have been able to keep them going with

the extraordinary support of teachers. -- asbergers. There is a

different level of teaching which autistic children across the

spectrum required. We have very much to create, through the flu stomach

free school network, that we can give people the flexible agenda

board for parents and teachers who understand the particular need, in

this case, that special needs provision, to bring that to an area

in which we hope we can reach out across the region for support for

those families. The children have enormous potential, particularly in

the IT and engineering Sears, which are key skill sets of the

north-east's businesses, -- spheres. We have a incredible amount of

autistic children who require the support. The signs is not entirely

fine tuned, but the more engineers you put together, the more autistic

children you have. It is a spectrum and we create more and more of

these, mostly young men, but some of them are women. There is a different

pattern required for learning, and we get some extraordinary

individuals for whom we can use great skills for our economy. I

would encourage that we continue with the free school system. Thank

you. I would like to congratulate the member, my honourable friend,

for getting this debate Tuesday because it is very well done and it

is on a very important subject. -- today. There want to pay tribute to

the member macs for Middlesbrough, Hartlepool who will be leaving our

ranks now and I'm really sad to see them go. They have been great

representatives for their constituencies over the last year.

In the last few years. This is a very important issue. Education,

education, education was the mantra of the last Labour Government and

that the mantra is now finished, it is no longer bear under the current

governments. If you would be figures on funding, on the funding of

schools, you just need to look at what Debbie county council said

about the effect of these funding cuts will have on schools in the

county. The funding formula leads to redundancies -- Derby Council. They

become unviable. 50% of primary schools will see cuts, a great

percentage of secondary schools as well. 111 primary schools will see a

reduction of around ?10,000 on average. Between 21 and 31 secondary

schools will see a loss of around ?15,000. This comes at a time when

the ATL have done a survey on schools about funding that is now

required for dot-mac from parents. Parents are now being asked to pay

for school places, sporting events to help fund and fill those gaps.

There been asked to find schools, 60% of schools say funding is being

cut. 90% of schools has said they are pessimistic about future

funding. Parents are paying an average of ?20 per week to their

local school to keep it going. Sport events, school concerts, art and

design materials, textbooks, library books, ITN sport equipment, parents

are being asked to fund. 44% of schools are renting out buildings

and even now, some of them are renting out their car parks. This is

representative, reflective of something that happened before. I

remember, during the 1990s, under the worst terror, Tory Government,

my children -- last Tory Government. They had to pay for their own

textbooks, pencils, equipment and it is now going full circle. This is

much worse. My old school, the one I attended quite a while ago now...

LAUGHTER Know! Has been rebuilt, fantastic

facility, fantastic teaching staff, fantastic children who want to learn

to get onto as biology do the best they can in their lives. Just

recently, it is now being told by the time is that it is now one of

the top 50 state schools in the country. -- The Times. That is

fantastic news. The edifice of that, the way that was established was by

what a previous Labour, -- previous Labour Government did. When I

compare to what it was like all those years ago, it has been

transformed. The previous Labour Government helped to achieve that

and I'm really proud of our record going forward. For what we have done

for that school. The teacher, David Davis, said schools face the

prospect of being unable to heat classrooms and being... Making sure

that only subject that need to be available are available. This is one

of the heads of one of the top schools in the country said it was a

complete and utter myth that the Government was protecting school

budgets. That is from one of the best, top 50 headteachers in the

country. In recent years, he said we have seen tensions, contributions

cleared, as well as moderate pay rise and no increase in the budget.

Schools in the north-east, schools in the north-east, schools in the

region, they have been told they will have millions to spend on

education if refunded at the average. The National Audit Office

said that cuts have been the equivalent of ?3 billion by 2020,

119 million pounds in real terms cuts for the north-east, equivalent

to 3200 teachers. The National Audit Office has also said the north-east

faces an 8% real term reduction in education. Mr Davies, the

headteacher at Sedgefield comprehensive, has said this means

schools having to reduce services which could include only eating

classrooms for part of the day, reduced investment in school

buildings, IT facilities being stretched beyond their usable life

and expensive subject being cut, like music and design technology. He

went on to say that it is our responsibility to provide the best

possible education, but ultimately parents need to be aware that the

future of their sons and daughters is at risk with the Scots. -- these

cuts. I'm a big believer in aspiration and people getting on,

what you do not achieve it when you have the kind of cuts that my school

am not Sedgefield but around the north-east, are facing. When your

teachers coming out, like David Davis, saying... Passing those

remarks to local newspapers, you know that you really have a problem.

One that the governor needs to address. I just want to add a little

bit of data for comparisons of schools and secondary schools in my

constituency. Business and enterprise College, ?253,000 cut by

changing the budget reductions. By 2019. The equivalent of six

teachers. Greenfield Trinity College, 14 teachers. Can you just

clarify that you're talking about cutting the funding to the School of

other the figures are of course pressures facing those schools? It

is different from income. It is not semantics. At Sedgefield, as a

consequence to the national funding formula, income to schools in

Sedgefield goes up under the national funding formulae to be

?100,000 and a 0.7% rise in income. You talking about cost pressures?

Just so we have a transparent, honest debate about school funding.

These figures are the ones that have been courted by teachers. The

headteachers are the ones who know what the budget pressures are. They

say that the budgets are being cut. They say they are under pressure,

they are losing funds to the equivalent of the number of teachers

that are mentioned. The equivalent of five teachers at Woodland

economy. 90 jobs elsewhere. Another excellent school in my constituency,

Sedgefield comprehensive, 11 teachers. And well field can induce

Gold, nine teachers of it is the equivalent of cutting the budget and

cutting it by ?2.2 million. When you have every headteacher in a borrow

that is part of my constituency, that takes in the role aspects of

Darlington. Every headteacher from primary schools and secondary

schools, 39 of them, have written to all their parents to point out the

dangers to the education of their children because of the changes do

formulas and got, and pressures on budget between now and 2020. I'm not

going to give way. You got plenty of time. The Minister can make these

comments at the end. I just want to get through these points. These

people want to make their comments. Also, primary schools, for example.

Budget changes, there is a school in Darlington, my patch, under ?25,000

of the primary schools in Sedgefield, Hardwick, Sedgefield

primary School, ?120,000 of changes in budget. You can shake it up

anywhere you want, Minister, but this is affecting schools and

teachers, and pupils, and the headteachers are coming out and

saying this, so it is obviously a problem. We can trade figures left,

right and centre but it is the headteacher that know what is

happening on the ground. Before I finish, just want to raise one

issue, which is not related to funding but is of importance to me.

It is certainly important to my pupils in Greenfield School, who

have been to see me recently. Christine Davies, Adam Morgan and

Melissa Foster, they have been to see me concerned about the new GCSEs

where they are treated differently in secondary schools to public

schools. Only 7% of pupils are actually in education. 93% are in

state schools. Thank you much giving ways. The points he is making, would

you agree with me that the overrepresentation of the privately

and publicly school educated in positions of power on the benches

opposite, together with the accession of preschools and grammar

schools that this Government has, means that it is impossible for them

to understand the budgeting and funding pressures and what they mean

for the experience of our young people?

I think that is an element of truth in that and it also comes down to

what I'm going to say no, and I'd like to hear the minister's comments

on it. In state schools, about 40% of your coursework went towards new

GCSE. Now you can do that. In a public school, you do have the

chance to do that, and is still recognised by employers. The people

that have been to see me from Greenfield School have said, why

can't we have a level playing field? If it's going to be that you can't

have 40% of your coursework counted towards you GCSE, why can't it be

the same in public schools as well? They just want a level playing

field. They want everyone to be treated the same. Why is it that

just because you can afford to pay for your child's education, they

have a better chance in life than most parents, 93% of them, who don't

have the opportunity to send the child to public school. Just make it

a level playing field, because it is affecting the aspirations and social

mobility of our children and it is fundamentally unfair. I'd like to

hear the minister's... He can shake his head. I have pupils and

headteachers coming to see me about this issue. It is fundamentally

unfair when people in public schools get a better chance in life than

those people who send their children to state schools. I'm going to wind

up now and the Minister can answer all these as he wants and I'm sure

he will. But that is a fundamentally unfair system that we are in and it

needs to be addressed. Do you see this, you have the members opposite

shaking their heads. Am I surprised at that? No, I am not, because they

do not believe it is unfair. Seven minutes guideline, please. It is a

pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I want to start by

congratulating my honourable friend for securing this important debate.

I also want to pay tribute to the work of my honourable friend from

Middlesbrough South and Cleveland and Hartlepool. I think they will be

very much missed by our colleagues. The proposal further funding formula

is neither fair nor will it properly fund schools. As other members have

pointed out already, the proposed freeze on funding is a cut in real

terms as inflation and cost increase, which the National Audit

Office has estimated will to 3 million funding gap. Across the

country, it is estimated that 99% of schools will have a per pupil spend

cut and schools in the north-east will be particularly badly hit. In

my constituency in the City of Durham, I was appalled to know that

some schools are projected to see their income per pupil decreased by

almost a quarter from 2013 to 2019. On average, this equates to a ?305

cut per pupil and an average cut of 7% for each school. But the figures

for individual schools and paint a much bleaker picture. This

particular concern is backed by the National union of teachers, and has

estimated that one of the best performing schools in the country is

set to lose ?613 per pupil, equivalent to the loss of 19

teachers. This will have a huge impact on the school. A school in

the north of my constituency is set to lose ?437 per pupil, Belmont

community School more. And a community business College, which

serves he really, really disadvantaged communities, will face

a massive cut of ?961 per pupil. This is simply devastating for the

school. Primary schools are affected as well, with Saint Oswald 's Church

of England primary losing ?609 per pupil. A school in the most

disadvantaged could community is losing more than ?900 per pupil.

This is outrageous, and we need to hear something from the Minister

about what he can possibly say to justify this level of cuts. This

equates to the potential loss of 670 teachers within the local authority

and a budget deficit of over 24 million by 20 19. This situation is

terrible and needs to be addressed by adjusting the funding formula and

putting more money into education. Overall, the north-east is estimated

to lose 119 million in school funding in real terms by 2020. The

loss of over 3200 teachers. And parents and teachers across Durham

have been in touch with me, because they are really concerned about the

situation. The Conservatives ran on a manifesto pledge in 2015 of

protecting education funding, promising a real terms increase in

the school budget in this Parliament. Not only have a field to

keep this promise, they are bringing in cuts in real terms. The effects

of this are damaging, subjects are cut from the curriculum, tables with

special education needs are losing support, and teachers and school

staff vacancies and left unfilled. Without additional money, the

already severe crisis in schools will get worse. Threatening

standards in education... In March of this year, I met with the

National Association of Head Teachers in Parliament, who are

unanimously deeply concerned about the cuts to school budgets. 72% of

school leaders say their budgets will be unsustainable by 2019. And

at a recent meeting with headteachers in my constituency,

they said exactly the same thing. They are having to make impossible

decisions. But what a difference this is to a decade ago under the

Labour government, when I met headteachers on a regular basis to

discuss where the investment was going to call, what new schools we

would have, what new technology would have, what new skills through

investing in. And what's happening is not only the government are not

funding our schools properly, but they're wasting money in preschool

that build on my constituency, we now have a proposal for another one.

Total and utter waste of money. I also want very briefly to mention to

the Minister about capital funding. Since all the schools were chopped

off the list and we'll remember that, my schools were due to get

money and funding plans, because there is desperately needed capital

investment. That money has not been forthcoming under either the

Coalition Government orders government. Not only that, the

schools in question can't even get a meeting with the Minister to discuss

buildings and how to replace those that are no longer fit for purpose.

Perhaps when the minister gets to his feet, he will tell us what he is

going to do and what is Treasury colleagues are going to do to put

more money into schools, and what he's going to do in terms of capital

funding. Thanks very much. I would like to congratulate also my

honourable friend, the member for Washington and Sunderland West, for

securing the debate. I 2am immensely proud of the progress made in our

schools during the last Labour government. The money ploughed into

nurseries and primary schools reaped benefits. I remember one secondary

headteacher telling me that more and more children arriving at school

were better equipped with higher levels of new Morsi and literacy

than ever and ready for the secondary school curriculum. As the

member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, some of that improvement has been

sustained, but that is because of the tremendous base at the Labour

government put into schools during its time in office. Having seen the

funding at levels needed in recent times, even parents are worried. But

the gains made over a generation are actually now in jeopardy. A

constituent wrote to me about her worries that her child's school

faces an effective budget cut of ?86,576 over the next four years.

That's a couple of teachers or maybe a few classroom assistants. And that

picture is repeated across the Stockton borough. In 2015/2016, our

allocation per pupil was ?4447, and that figure has stayed the same

since 2010, while Marsh rate has increased. Do the schools funding to

begin January, the schools minister admitted schools were facing cost

pressures. The concerns were not about funding levels, but about

ending the postcode lottery and making funding feared. I agree that

our funding should be made fairer, but other factors need to be taken

into consideration. If the new formula is fairer, why do Stockton

children get less than the average? Of the 13 secondary schools in the

borough, six face cash drop of 2.9%, while others expect an increase of

less than 1%. Northfield gets a whopping zero point 1% and 0.2%.

That is not the whole picture. The proposed national funding formula

does not take into account other elements such as inflation, staff

salary increases, other increases in resources the school may need.

Having taken all the pressures into account, the vast majority of

schools in England are likely to see real cuts in funding per pupil over

the next three years. What'll happen? Teachers will get sacked.

Class sizes will increase. Schools' ability to deliver a wide and

diverse curriculum will be compromised. I expect we will see

demand is increased on parents to fund everything from classroom

essentials to extracurricular activities, which until recently

was, schools have been able to provide. I would ask, what will

happen to schools in my constituency. They serve some of the

needy as communities in the country and they face budget cuts of 2.9 and

2.3% respectively. So what are parents from their school is going

to do when they're asked for cash to help their schools get through? We

don't have the money! But it's the kids at the bottom end of the pile

am worried about. Allocating funding via this formula will also increase

the attainment gap, as students from deprived backgrounds may not have

the same level of support at home as those from an affluent background.

Honourable members know full well that the government formula is far

from fear and is only based on current pupil numbers and doesn't

take into account the increase of student numbers. The Minister may

say that under proposals, Stockton will receive an increase overall,

but that will not help maintain staffing and teaching and learning

at current levels. The Minister mentioned cuts against pressures. It

makes no odds whether it is a cut on a cost pressure. It means cuts to

teachers, teaching assistants and other services. The Institute for

Fiscal Studies recently reported that school spending is projected to

fall by 6.5% in real terms between 2015 and 2019. This means that even

the schools benefiting from the new formula have their gains completely

wiped out by other funding pressures. This will undermine the

quality of education in classrooms, pitting children's academic progress

at risk. I know that even Tory colleagues now

the government is letting our schools down and doubtless,

ministers are working on special arrangements for particular areas.

We've already seen it in social care. If ministers want to be fairer

and funding, if they really do want to address that attainment gap, if

they want every child to realise their potential, they need to take

action now a nd make sure that no school and more importantly, no

child actually loses thank you. I would like to congratulate my for

securing this debate, which has given rise impassioned and very

honest friends from Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland and

Hartlepool all the very best for the future. Last month, together with

the Right Honourable member for Tynemouth, who has already submitted

his apologies for today, I and wish our friends from Middlesbrough South

and East Cleveland and Hartlepool all the very best for the future.

Last month, together with the Right Honourable member for Tynemouth, who

has already submitted his apologies for today, in their campaign to get

the the meeting of head teachers from across our borough, about the

effects of the government budget cuts on schools across North

Tyneside. Both he and I felt we would do all we could to support our

heads in their campaign to get that is of particular concern to

community primary schools on North Tyneside, and that is the

apprenticeship levy. We've already heard today of a ludicrous situation

of a school in Washington and Sunderland West constituency to

reverse these severe cuts, which as they stand, will affect not only the

education of our children, but also cost as important skilled teaching

jobs. But today, under the title of this debate, I would like to press

further on something that is of particular concern to community

primary schools on North Tyneside, and that is the apprenticeship levy.

We've already heard today of a ludicrous situation of a school in

Washington and Sunderland and this levy is placing an that may may have

very small budgets. I've to point out at this stage that North on all

the schools it affects, that may may have very small budgets. I would

like to point out at this stage that North face of their have had to

impose a levy and overly concerned about them and have raised their

concerns with government, and all they can do in the face of their big

is sympathise with these schools. I've been contacted by headteachers

from our community primary schools, who pointed out the real and is

sympathise with these schools. I've been contacted by headteachers from

our community primary schools, who pointed out the real unfairness of

the levy because academies are exempt from the levy and it eats up

0.5 because academies are exempt from the levy and it