Erratic shifts in budget for educational disadvantages
It was clear in advance that the redistribution of the education deficit budget would produce winners and losers. However, the fact that schools in disadvantaged neighborhoods can suffer a significant decline is causing unrest.
Image: Pixabay
The new indicator of the Central Bureau of Statistics, which will be used from next school year to divide the educational disadvantage budget (260 million euros per year) among primary schools, is causing erratic budget shifts. This is evident from a calculation model that the PO Council has developed on the basis of data from the Ministry of Education.
Roughly one in three school boards will lose out compared to the current weighting scheme, while one in three boards will also receive additional funding. But the shifts do not follow a clear pattern. Within one municipality, there are school boards that benefit from this new indicator, while in the same municipality there are also boards that have to surrender. Winners and losers can also often be found within school boards. A quarter of the more than 6400 primary schools are in decline, while a quarter of the schools are getting more money. These are often relatively small amounts, but there are also schools and boards that have to make significant sacrifices.
Problem neighborhood
The Valentine's School in the Rotterdam district of Delfshaven lost the largest amount, almost a million euros. That is more than half of the 1,8 million that is still available this year. The Emmaus School, located in the same problem area, will lose almost 63 euros, the second largest amount. Both schools are managed by the Rotterdam Association for Catholic Education (RVKO), with 21 schools one of the largest boards in primary education. In total, twenty RVKO schools are handing over part of their disadvantaged budget, including the Maria School in the disadvantaged neighborhood of Spangen, also in the Delfshaven district. Although 1,6 other RVKO schools will receive a (smaller) amount, the board is delivering a total of 13 million euros. That is 10 percent of the current backlog budget, which makes up XNUMX percent of the total income of the school board.
According to the new indicator, Rotterdam is also the city where proportionally most children live who run the risk of an educational disadvantage due to an unfavorable home situation.
Wrong, because according to the new indicator, Rotterdam is also the city where proportionally most children live who run the risk of educational disadvantage due to an unfavorable home situation. That is why the backlog budget that Rotterdam school boards jointly receive is also growing by 5 percent, but RVKO does not benefit from that.
Impuls
Friend and foe think that the new indicator provides a better picture of the risk of educational disadvantage than the outdated weighting scheme. The educational level of the parents is the only criterion for determining who is at risk of being disadvantaged. Because the level of education is rising, the number of weight students decreases and the budget is shrinking. Since 2012, 150 million euros has already evaporated, while the inequality of opportunities in education has increased. The educational level of the parents still plays a role in the new system, but many more levels are distinguished than in the old scheme, which only has three weights: 0, 0,3 and 1,2. In addition, four criteria count, such as the country of origin of the parents and their length of stay in the Netherlands. Together they lead to a falling behind score per student on a sliding scale.
The size of the budget is now fixed; just like the size of the target group. Regardless of the level of the scores, there is always extra money for the 15 percent of students with the highest risk of arrears. This will put an end to the automatic erosion of the backlog budget. It was certain in advance that the new allocation system would lead to budget shifts, but school boards do wonder how it is possible that schools in disadvantaged neighborhoods in particular are the victims of this.
Weight
The most important explanation: schools that now have many pupils with a weight of 1,2 are declining because the lowest level of education carries less weight. Because these schools are often also located in a postcode area where many people live on benefits, they lose twice as much. Schools in these so-called 'impulse areas' now receive an extra supplement on top of the weight resources. This supplement will disappear because the new indicator already takes into account environmental factors that negatively influence educational opportunities. The money involved in the impulse scheme is added to the backlog budget.
School boards are given a few years to adjust their financial policies. They can decide for themselves how they distribute the backlog funds among the schools. They do not have to follow the arrears scores. These are intended to distribute the money more fairly at a national level, but a score only says something about the risk of disadvantage within a group of students. Schools themselves know best whether an individual pupil is actually lagging behind.
