Whose money is it?

The 2009/2010 spreadsheet detailing the finances of Cornwall's schools offers a few more nuggets: nearly one in six Cornish secondary schools ended that financial year in debt, yet secondary headteachers seem better able to spend their revenues than their colleagues in primary schools.

The total resources available to Cornwall's secondary schools that year was nearly £178 million. Their total uncommitted revenue balance at year end was only £2.1 million. In contrast, Cornish primary schools had less money available (£160 million) yet trousered an impressive £4.4 million (more than enough to build a new school in St Tudy.)

I've spent an interesting couple of days trying - and mostly failing - to get primary headteachers to talk about this. The argument that the money is needed for specific projects does not bear scrutiny. If you include the figure for committed revenue balances (an extra £8.8 million) you see that they actually reached the end of the year with more than £13 million in the bank.

I accept that it is comforting to go into a new financial year able to deal flexibly with unforseen staffing issues and repair things promptly when they break or wear out. But at what point does "prudent saving" become simply "saving for a rainy day" - which might or might not ever come?

It is now 23 years since Margaret Thatcher's government introduced Local Management of Schools, snipping the purse strings of the elected local councils and promoting headteachers to the role of mini chief executives.

I'm afaid I rather annoyed one primary school headteacher this week when I questioned his use of the phrase "we're running a business." While I don't dispute that schools need to be run in a business-like way, state schools are not required to return a financial profit on our investment. They are merely required to educate our children.