“Although I can see both sides of the arguement, I must say that the monies identified and at risk of being 'clawed back' are monies over and above the 5 / 8% allowed variances and monies not allocated to 'commited' expenditure. This said, the arguement raised regarding schools 'pooling' monies for projects would not have been included within this 'at risk' figure as it has been 'comitted' on a development project. Monies at risk are monies that have not been 'commited' and therefore, have not officially been earmarked for any specific expenditure. Although it has been stated that schools cannot accuratly predict pupil numbers and there could be ups and downs in pupil numbers (therefore affecting funding received), I think it is only moral that funding received (for the purpose of educating those pupils at the school) should not be left in bank accounts (future generations) at the expense of the current pupil population.
I think most parents would (and do) feel agrieved when asked to dig deep into their pockets to raise funds for school expenditure (particularly school trips, that are deemed estential to certain subjects, books etc.) when the school is carrying forward large balances from one year end to another.

It should also be noted that LCC continue to gripe to the government that we are the lowest funded authority, what case can we put to the government for a fairer payout when our results show such a vast balance of surplus cash?”

“If you consider there are about 290 schools in Leicestershire (according to the Council's website) it's easy to see where this seemingly big surplus comes from. Not actually much of a story at all really...”

“Ok Angela H, explain why there is a £16 million surplus?”

“We are talking about breaking even over a number of year's Ken - that's exactly what I'm saying and Lisa is saying. We are talking about carrying some money forward from one year to the next, not holding back a huge surplus for years on end (that's just the way the article is worded). In most cases (probably all) we are not talking huge sums of money just a fraction of the overall budget, a couple of hundred thousand from a budget of around 6 - 7 million and holding over into the following year to balance the budget over two or three years rather than one. All schools will have earmarked this for something , don't pay attention to the word uncommitted as it is used above. It certainly will be planned for something, either a building improvement plan or salaries during a period when numbers drop - schools are funded per head which fluctuates each year, but you can't change your whole staffing structure year on year - good teachers need to be retained. Why not listen to the people who work in this area and understand it like the head quoted and school finance officers, rather than a slanted Mercury report.

A simple example - if a secondary school has 10 students less one year that is a reduction of about £40k in their budget. That is the cost of a teacher but you can't just lose a teacher because you've lost ten students as that is only a third of a class. You might need to save some money in one year to cover this loss the following year. There are lots of complicating factors but this does illustrate why you need to budget over a few years rather than balance every year. And because you have 10 students less that doesn't mean your costs for energy or waste disposal or rates or cleaning or a host of other things go down. Good budgeting is about planning ahead not working year by year.”

“Angela - In 3 years you can break even. No need to hold a large surplus. This is how how businesses are run. What this tells me is that schools are relunctant to spend money on children becuase they cannot successfully predict budget spend for 3 years. Therefore they hold back the money and show a big spend. Is this called good financial management?”