Fewer pupils means less money for education
FEWER PUPILS MEANS LESS MONEY FOR EDUCATION
Re: Children are not just a number in a classroom
It's far too early to be talking about transport costs to other schools. The Schools Organaistaion Advisory Board has not even yet decided whether to go out to consultation. If it does, then all the options will be looked at. This would start with a public meeting on 14 June in Selsted at which the Area Education Officer will make a presentation and take questions.
I have been trying to explain the very real problem that all our schools face with falling numbers of children. And because the government funds schools per pupil this means that schools with less pupils have less money to spend on education. So not much chance of being able to fund smaller classes. If we don't amalgamate and close some schools we will see all but the most popular schools have to start taking action to cut costs and staff.
I can't see any political advantage involved in closing or amalgamating schools, it will always be unpopular.
Member Elham Valley
Kent County Council