Title

Chris Waterman looks at the impact of the Comprehensive Spending Review on children and families Inevitably, the focus in the lead up to the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) was on key headline issues and the politicking between ministers, senior civil servants and the Treasury. At that stage, the various interest groups could stand and stare, hoping that ‘their' minister would win the guerrilla war for a smaller reduction than other departments. Child benefit, tuition fees and aircraft carriers – with or without aircraft – dominated the debate until 20 October, when all became clear. Clarity is, of course, a relative term, and already there is some fleet-footed sleight of hand – excuse the mixed metaphor – as the details are unpicked. Education secretary, Michael Gove, did less worse than most of his Cabinet colleagues, although uncharitable commentators attribute this, not to his skill, but an unintended consequence of the Building Schools for the Future fiasco, one of the first and worst public relations episodes of the coalition government, so far. However, a real increase in schools budgets and the introduction of the pupil premium offer some succour to schools, but what happens between 9am and 4pm on 190 days a year is only one part of the provision for children and families. Individual families are only too well aware of how they will be effected by the various decisions that will flow from the CSR, as national agencies and local authorities begin to cut their coats from the much smaller bolts of cloth. For some families, who are comfortably off, with their own home and children in private education, the only immediate impact will be the financial one from the changes to child benefit, education maintenance allowances and university tuition fees. For other families, the initial impact will also be financial, starting with redundancy or reduced working hours, and reductions in some benefits. Changes to health, housing and transport will be more ‘quality of life' issues, as will the impact of increased charges or the closure of libraries and leisure centres. Reductions in support services will impact most heavily on vulnerable families, as will the indirect services provided via the school. What happens inside the classroom will affect all pupils, but teaching support again will effect the most vulnerable children and young people. Perhaps saddest of all is the likelihood that the increase in tuition fees will have no impact on the poorest children and families: the certainty of high levels of post-graduate debt will mean that for many, a university education will not even be a distant dream. There is no doubt that reductions in public expenditure are necessary, although there are different opinions about the scale and pace that is needed. While we are all in this together, the fairness of the proposals can only be measured if the aggregate impact on children and families can be determined and discussed. Chris Waterman is editor of Children's Services Weekly

Title

WHITEHALL

Make sure we keep it in the family

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING