A Christmas Fable of Promises and Gold

Posted on December 8, 2012 by

Once upon a time, in a land far away, there lived a king and his four sons. The king had come to power through a promise he had made with the elves and fairies of the kingdom to look after their needs and wishes in exchange for him ruling the kingdom.

For many years the kingdom was successful and as his sons became older he gave each of them a task. The first prince was responsible for ensuring that there was sufficient food and firewood. The second prince was responsible for collecting taxes. The third prince was responsible for castles and weapons. The fourth prince was to look after the needs of the elves and fairies.

For many years the system worked well and the king, the princes and the people in the kingdom enjoyed happy lives. But one day the gold which was kept in the biggest castle was stolen and the kingdom was thrown into chaos.

The king called his four sons to a meeting and explained that their reserves were very low and they would all have to reduce their expenditure if the kingdom was to survive. He set each of the sons off to consider their plans and commanded that they return the next day with proposals.

The first prince decided that he would plant cheaper crops, reduce the amount of food given to each member of the kingdom, and increase the cost of food.

The second prince decided to increase income tax, put up taxes on hovels, and reduce the donations made to court beggars.

The third prince decided that they could sell off one of their castles to another kingdom, reduce the size of cannons on the castle walls, and stop the building of a new castle which had been planned for many years.

The fourth prince was stuck. He looked at his job and could think of lots of ways that he could reduce his costs. For example, he could stop giving each elf a gold coin every day; or he could stop allowing fairies to replace their wings on a weekly basis; he could even take the drastic step of telling the elves and fairies that would no longer have a room of their own in their fairy castle.

But each time he pondered an option he came up against the promise that had been made by his father, the king, to the elves and fairies.

The next day the king called his sons to his court table and asked them to set out their plans. Each of the first three princes explained in great detail how they would manage their reductions.

On completing the presentations, which had been well received by their father, they turned to the fourth prince. He began by reminding the others of the promises their father had made to the elves and fairies on his becoming king. As he continued he could see that his brothers were becoming angrier and angrier as it became obvious that he was saying that there was no way that he could reduce his expenditures if he was to keep the promise their father had made.

The other princes demanded that their brother go away and return the next day with a proper plan for reducing his costs in the same way in which they had done to the approval of their father.

That night the prince had a sleepless night for he had explored every possible avenue to reduce the money spent on the elves and fairies but he kept coming up against the promises his father had made to the elves and fairies on his crowning as king.

The next day they gathered again in the great hall and they waited patiently for their brother to match their proposals. As he slowly got to his feet he stuttered that he did have a plan. That plan was to stop giving each elf a gold coin every day and give them instead a silver coin. He had calculated that this would save the same as his brothers and that it would allow the kingdom to survive.

His brothers were elated – they knew that their brother had been holding back on them and that if they pushed hard enough he would come up with a plan like this.

However, the king was a wise man and did not share his sons’ euphoria. He asked the fourth prince if he had discussed this plan with the elves and fairies. The prince explained that he had but that they had not accepted the change in the conditions of the promise. The other princes did not think that was important – surely the elves and fairies understood that if savings were not made that the kingdom would fail and that none of their conditions of the promise would be met in the future.

The king sat quietly and contemplated the dilemma. As he sat the other princes shouted and demanded that the condition be changed. Eventually the king spoke. He explained that the promise made to the elves and fairies was one from which there could be no withdrawing. He instructed the princes that the ‘problem’ and the ‘promises’ belonged to each of them equally and that they must work together to solve their challenge.

A year later the kingdom had survived its trial, for the four princes had come to recognise that the problem could not be resolved by working in isolation, or by ignoring commitments they had made to others, but only by working together in sharing the problems each of them faced in an equal manner. And they all lived happily ever after.

The impact of repealing legislation: the role of local authorities in education

Posted on November 27, 2011 by

The juxtaposition at the recent ADES conference of Mike Russell, Cabinet Secretary for Education in Scotland, and Steve Munby, Chief Executive of the English National College for School Leaders, provided an interesting perspective into the possibilities for the future of Scottish education.

Mr Russell was very careful not to give away anything about changes to the governance of schools post local elections scheduled for May 2012. However, the general consensus is that change is on the horizon and that it will see more devolution of power to schools and headteachers; a change to funding mechanisms to schools and the associated role for local authorities; and an associated change to the role of local authorities in setting policy.

No-one reckons that there will be wholesale changes along the lines that were experienced in 1995 when the most recent local government reorganisation took place. Primarily due to the fact that any externally driven change requires the government to pick up the tab for the change process, etc.

This is where a comparison between what has happened in England over the last 25 years or so can prove useful. I must emphasise that I do not think Scotland will follow the English model in terms of the final outcome, e.g Academies, Trust schools, etc, but rather that we might follow the change strategy.

For it seems to me that one of the main means adopted in England has actually depended more upon repealing legislation, as opposed to the starting point being the creation of new legislation. That’s not to say that new legislation won’t be necessary but that the starting point could be to consider which pillars of the existing system could be pulled away, which in themselves might lead to radical change.

This is certainly what happened in England in the 1988 Education Reform Act, which saw a range of powers for Local Authorities being removed and either passed down to schools and their governors, or passed upwards to the government. Over the next 23 years those twin directions of travel have been inexorable. This is most recently evidenced in the 2011 Education Act, which further repealed the duties of local authorities.

In that period the government have not had to legislate for change in the organisational structure in local authorities, but rather by changing the responsibilities of local authorities the government created an environment where the local authorities had to adapt themselves to their changing role.

So what might be the duties currently undertaken by Scottish local authorities which, if removed, might lead to the most significant change?

To my mind there are four duties outlined in the “Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc. Act 2000“, which, if removed, might result in dramatic change to the education system in Scotland.

The first of these duties relates to the role of the local authority in relation to school improvement. This would be a fundamental shift in practice and would transform at a stroke the role of the local authority.

Section 3

(2)An education authority shall endeavour to secure improvement in the quality of school education which is provided in the schools managed by them; and they shall exercise their functions in relation to such provision with a view to raising standards of education.

The second duty which could be removed might be in relation to the local authority’s role in determining educational objectives for schools in their area.

Section 5

Education authority’s annual statement of improvement objectives

(1)For the purposes of their duty under section 3(2) of this Act, an education authority, after consulting such bodies as appear to the authority to be representative of teachers and parents within their area and of persons, other than teachers, who are employed in schools within that area and after giving children, young persons and such other persons within that area as appear to the authority to have an interest in the matter an opportunity to make their views known, shall, by such date in 2001 as the Scottish Ministers may, after consulting the education authorities, determine (one date being so determined for all the authorities) and thereafter by that date annually, prepare and publish a statement setting objectives.

The third associated duty which could be removed might be in relation to school development planning, which would remove the obligation of the school to take account of the local authorities statement of educational objectives. (although this would be superfluous if section 5 (1) were removed.

Section 6
School development plans

(a)a development plan which takes account of the objectives in the authority’s annual statement of education improvement objectives published by that date in the year in question and sets objectives for the school;

Finally, the last duty which could be removed might be in relation to the delegation of budgets to schools. This presupposes that the delegation scheme is devised by the authority. However, if this were removed it could be replaced by a national scheme of delegation which is simply overseen by the authority.

Section 8

Delegation schemes

(1)An education authority shall have a scheme for delegating to the headteacher of a school—

(a)managed by them; and

(b)of a category of school which is stated in the scheme to be covered by the scheme,
management of that share of the authority’s budget for a financial year which is available for allocation to individual schools and is appropriated for the school; or management of part of that share.

Of course, these are simply personal musings on the future of local governance of education and are not based in any inside knowledge of what will happen once the local elections have taken place. Nevertheless, it’s important for people in my position to have some view of how the things might change and how we could adapt if these were to come pass.

Headteacher Pay: England Vs Scotland

Posted on October 1, 2011 by

Given today’s Scotland Vs England world cup rugby fixture (we’ll not refer to the result) I thought it might be of interest to try to compare headteacher pay between the two countries.

The English pay scales are set out in Pay and Conditions for Teachers in England Wales and I’ll use this document as the basis for what follows.

In this example I will use a secondary school of 900 students, split equally into six year groups of 150 students..

The English system is based upon the concept of pupil units.

For example a student in Key Stage 3 – equivalent to S1 – S2 (12-14 yrs) – is worth 9 units; a student in Key Stage 4 (14-16 yrs) is worth 11 units; and a student in Key Stage 5 (16-18 yrs) is worth 13 units.

Using the 150 students in each year group this translates into 9,900 units.

The units are then compared to a school group table – for the sake of this exercise I’m only going to refer to the scales for schools outwith the London area.

The scales are:

Group Pay range

1 – up to 1000 £42,379 – £56,950

2 – up to 2,200 £44,525 – £61,288

3 – up to 3,500 £48,024 – £65,953

4 – up to 5,000 £51,614 – £70,991

5 – up to 7,500 £56,950 – £78,298

6 – up to 11,000 £61,288 – £86,365

7 – up to 17,000 £65,963 – £95,213

8 – beyond 17,000 £75,725 – £105,097

In our example, the headteacher of a school of 900 students would be paid – at the top end – and most of them seem to be at that level £86,365, whereas in Scotland the pay is a maximum £66,000 for an identical school.

The final level of a headteachers’ pay is determined by the Governing Body (i.e. parents) within the scales set out above – although there is some leeway for awarding additional discretionary payments.

There are addditional scales of pay for headteachers of “special schools” but for the sake of simplicity I’ve ignored them in this comparision.

Conclusion:

There does not seem to be a significant difference between the level of pay for basic grade teachers in England and Scotland but there are very significant differences in the pay of headteachers – particularly at secondary level. English headteachers would appear to be paid between 20 – 30% more than their Scottish counterparts.

The key differences in terms of expectation is that the English school governing body can set performance targets that they expect the headteacher to achieve, and the fact that English Headteachers have a greater range of devolved responsibilities than their Scottish counterparts.

Microfinance: supporting social enterprise for student and community benefit

Posted on September 15, 2011 by

Option 29 described in the curriculum for excellence senior phase post was described simply as: Establish a microfinance investment fund for student application.

I’ve been asked by a number of people to explain what I meant by this and how it might work.

This option has a number of threads but the starting point is founded upon a perceived need to encourage students to actively create social enterprises which will benefit their communities, and in turn,themselves.

The idea is not new and is rooted in the Grameen Bank concept, although with more of a focus upon community benefit and personal/group development, rather than tackling poverty. The scheme should certainly tackle some of the symptoms of poverty within communities.

Example:

The concept is based upon the establishment of a microfinance fund using donations from local business people and other sources – councils included. This money would be placed in a trust to which students, or other members of a community, could submit an application for a micro loan which would allow them to establish and develop their social enterprise. The only stipulation – aside from the viability of the plan – would be that the proposal must have a direct benefit to their local community.

An example we have been developing relates to an Elders Buddy Scheme. Let’s say that a student (or students) at the school applies to the fund for an interest free loan to set up the buddy scheme, which will involve families or individuals paying a minimal fee for a young person to spend 5 hours week making an evening home visit to an elderly person. The social entrepreneur/s, would use the loan – to a maximum £1000 – to pay for advertising, information materials, recruitment, training, disclosure fees, and other costs.

The microfinance fund would seek to provide additional support through a business /community mentor and a further network of relevant contacts and fellow social entrepreneurs.

Areas of possible community benefit include; early years and child care; elderly care; youth programmes; disability support; and environment.

Obviously there are numerous working details missing from this description but in order to keep this post brief and to the point I’ll focus upon the benefits to the indviduals and the community they inhabit, and the possible problems.

Here’s a list of possible benefits:

Young people are introduced to the world of work and enterprise in a real and meaningful manner.
Communituties would benefit from the services provided.
Experience in developing and running a social enterprise would be highly regarded on applications for employment or further/higher education.
Young people develop real experience in financial management.
It gives meaning to other academic studies as they become contextualised in a world of work and social duty.
If recognised as part of a young person’s senior phase curriculum it would enhance and deepen that experience.
It would promote comunity engagement and awareness of young people with/about their community.
It woukd raise the positive profile of young people in their communities.
Encourages young people to take the next step into running businesses for themselves.
Promotes and entrepreneurial spirit in a community/school.

And possible problems:

Loans are not repaid
Enterprises collapse as young people leave their communities for further study or employment
Services to vulnerable groups are not sustained
Existing services with full time employees are placed at risk due to competition.
Schools do not recognise the value of the scheme and only allow high achieving students to particpate or do not facilitate time for involvement.
The scheme does not offer sufficient support in the initial stages
The bureaucracy of the application process is too off putting and complex.
Funding is too short term.
Insufficient number of financial backers.
Works only in areas of high net worth and not in communites which might really benefit.

Comments and suggestions welcome.

Residential Child Care: Think Local

Posted on July 18, 2011 by

Let’s start with some numbers: Scotland spends £250 million a year on providing residential care to Looked After children – a rise of 68% in a seven year period. These are children who have been placed in the care of the Local Authority through voluntary arrangements with parents, or have been placed in compulsory care through children’s hearings, a sheriff’s order, or a court ruling. The reasons for placement include care orders, child protection, and offending behaviour.

Around 1600 children and young people are placed in residential care each year. This figure has remained stable over the last seven years, despite the number of children being identified as Looked After increasing from 9 in every 1000 in 1998 rising to 14 in every 1000 in 2009.

Of £250 million total expenditure, which accounts for 30% of Councils’ Children service budgets, £135 million is spent on providing residential education and secure accommodation, almost all of which is provided by the independent sector, with average weekly costs varying from £800 – £5000 per child, (£41,000- £260,000 a year).

Yet despite this investment we know that the outcomes for children and young people placed in care are incredibly poor, with 1 in 10 experiencing homelessness within two years of leaving care; 25% of our prison population having been in care; 45% of looked after and accommodated children having mental health problems; and half of all such young people failing to achieve a foundation award at either Maths of English.

The challenges facing Local Authorities are twofold: ensuring that they fulfil their statutory corporate parenting responsibilities for Looked After Children, whilst ensuring that they maintain an appropriate balance between quality and cost.

As a Director of Education and Children’s Services I share the corporate parenting responsibilities with elected members and other senior officers. I would actually extend that responsibility to every employee of the council; and perhaps go even further by extending that to every member of our communities in East Lothian

Nevertheless, from a statutory perspective I have a range of responsibilities for this group of children and young people, namely, to safeguard and promote their welfare; make use of services that would be available to children were they cared for by their parents; promote regular and direct contact between a child and person with parental responsibilities; find out and have regard for the views of the child, his/her parents and any other relevant person when making decisions which might affect them; and finally, take account of a child’s background.

Yet there is one additional responsibility set out in the Looked After Children (Scotland) Act 2009 – with particular regard to education which is, perhaps, the most difficult to fulfil, it reads: “They should also receive additional help, encouragement and support to address special educational needs or compensate for previous disadvantage and gaps in educational provision.”

This last line presents both a challenge and a dilemma for someone in my position. Firstly, why haven’t we tackled a person’s disadvantage earlier to ensure that they have had the same opportunities as all other children? And, secondly, why do they have gaps in their educational provision?

These are not rhetorical questions. These are uncomfortable truths. For the reality is that we have not addressed these questions in anything like a rigorous enough manner. For we know that inadequate parenting in the first few months of a child’s life has a devastating impact upon their future. We know that that subsequent gaps in children’s development emerge before they commence school. We know that these gaps extend and accelerate once they get into school. We know that Looked After Children are more likely to be excluded. We know that such children will occupy the bottom sets in subjects such as Maths and English. We know that they are more likely to be known to the local police and to be causing problems in their community.

Yet when the system- not the child – has really failed we send them off to secure accommodation at a cost of a £260,000 a year – the equivalent to employing six teachers for a year.

I wonder how a group of headteachers might respond to the offer of having an additional quarter of million pounds a year on condition that no child or young person would be sent to secure accommodation from their community? Of course such a scenario would be difficult to manage given that some secure orders can be made by a Children’s Hearing or Court, depending upon the offence or circumstances – but it does provide food for thought.

The reality is that residential care is a legitimate part of the care continuum we provide to children. However, if we are to fully address our obligation as corporate parents it is not enough to accept that some of these children will inevitably end up in a residential school or secure accommodation. I wouldn’t accept that for my own children and I don’t think we should accept for those who are placed in our care.

Children and young people belong to their local communities. They belong to their schools. We should be doing everything in our power to ensure that Looked After Children stay in their schools and in their communities – and experience a childhood which mirrors the opportunities, love and support which we would expect for our own children. Now no-one said this was going to be easy?

The Water Dilemma: Game Theory – is win,win really possible in our modern world?

Posted on March 10, 2010 by

The challenge presented by the financial situation as set out in my last post should focus the mind of any of us involved in public service. Nevertheless, the temptation will always be to approach any problem – regardless of how potentially devastating that problem might be – from the point of view of self-interest (and not necessarily enlightened). Yet the concern must be that without some dramatic change in mindset we face a situation where the entire system defaults.

I’ve always been attracted to the notion of Game Theory and thought it might be useful to try to construct my own “game” to enable us to explore our own unfortunate reality!

Answers on a postcard.

Lake Punto Morto

Two countries are in conflict over a lake which extends equally on either side of their respective borders. The lake is the only source of water for each of the countries. Each of the countries seeks to extract as much water as possible from the reservoir each year so as to prevent the other country from gaining an advantage.

This has never really been a problem as the winter rains have always refilled the lake. However, over the last two years there have been no winter rains and the lake is dangerously low. There are no other means of storing significant quantities of water in either of the countries. The countries do not speak the same language and will not meet under any circumstances

The countries have two options:

1. Extract as much water as they can, as quickly as they can in the hope that the other country will be destroyed.

2. Reduce their own rate of extraction from the lake in the hope that the winter rains will replenish the lake’s water level.

Which option should the countries take?

Campaign against budget cuts in Scottish education

Posted on March 7, 2010 by

Net Local Authority Revenue Expenditure by Service (%)

The Educational Institute of Scotland is running a campaign against any budget cuts in Scottish Education.

A march was held in Glasgow today at which thousands of teachers, parents and lecturers joined to protest against any education budget reductions under the banner “why must our children pay?”

As a teacher and passionate advocate for education I understand and support the sentiment and motivation behind the campaign but I can’t quite see how it’s going to be possible to ring fence any single service within the Scottish public service environment – for all that it might make my job a lot easier.

No less a person than Sir John Elvidge , Scotland’s senior civil servant, speaking at an event on the 29th January, warned that public service spending in Scotland is likely to be reduced by 10 per cent in real terms in three years time and 20 per cent in seven years compared to current levels. He went on to say:

“I think one of the hardest questions that faces us all as managers is how will the trend of real terms reductions last.

I think, without getting into political territory, it’s difficult to identify the point of certainty at which one says: ‘Ah, yes, it will definitely have turned round by then.’ And all I’d say is, that if one looks beyond four years, at that rate of annual real terms reduction and taking into account compounding, it doesn’t take very long to get to 20 per cent instead of 10 per cent.”

Taking Elvidge’s figure of 10% (which will be closer to 12% with the compounding effect) I thought it might be useful to explore the impact on public services in Scotland.

The most recent figures we have available for Scottish education expenditure relate to the financial year 2007-2008. In that year the revenue expenditure was £4.7 billion. Using this figure , although it’s likely to be much closer to £5 billion in the current year, a 10% reduction would equate to £470 million. The logic must be that if this sum is not to be picked up by education then it must be passed onto some other Scottish public service. So who would be best placed to pay this bill?

The Scottish Health service had expenditure of £8.9 billion in 2006/2007. Their share of the 10% savings would be £890 million – so perhaps they have their fair share of the challenge and the focus should lie elsewhere?

So how about the cost of running the Scottish Government? The 2010/2011 draft budget for running the core administration of the government is £258.3 million – which is dwarfed by the £470 million three-year saving which would be required of education.

Of course Scottish education (apart from further and higher education) is funded though Local Authorities – there must be significant opportunities for the burden to lie with other Local Authority Services?

Education’s average share of the total revenue expenditure for Local Authorities in 2007-2008 was 42.6% . The table shown above describes how education and and social work – which includes child protection and community care – takes that proportion up to 65%. Then add police, fire and emergency planning and you’re up to nearly 80%. Throw in roads and transport, economic development and environmental services and the total is well beyond 90%.

The reality is that Local Authorities cannot meet a 10% saving from its net revenue expenditure of £11.1 billion, i.e. £1.11 billion, from the remainder of those services which might not be deemed as sacrosanct as some of those listed previously.

Perhaps John Elvidge gets close to the truth when he suggested:

“This is going to be an enormous challenge for any system – and it tells us that the right thing for all public sector managers to be doing at the moment is to err on the side of pessimism in their forecasts, and radicalism in their thinking.” (my emboldened type)

For me it’s this latter trait which will require all involved in education to adopt if we are to safely navigate these difficult waters over the next few years.

I’ll leave the last words with John Elvidge:

“I think the shape of delivery of at least some public services is going to look completely different. I wish I knew which ones they were and which ones will look different, but it’s obvious that we can’t simply continue to run the models that we run for delivery of various public services,”

It’s a priority!

Posted on December 28, 2009 by

The EIS released its Charter for Instrumental Music on the 28th December 2008.

“The EIS believes that every child should have the right to learn to play a music instrument and to develop their ability to sing. Developing an understanding of music is beneficial to pupils in many ways, and can have a profound effect on the personal and social development of children. Through instrumental music instruction, pupils can learn how to work both as an individual and as part of a larger group. This can have a positive effect on their social skills and on their self-confidence and overall personal development. Learning to make music allows pupils to take pride in their accomplishments and provides them with skills that will be applicable to many other areas of their everyday lives both now and in the future.”

In a very worthy document the EIS stress the importance of Instrumental instruction. I have previously explored the importance of what can sometimes be termed as “peripheral” educational activities in relation to core activities. It was John Connell who came up with the term “inverting the core” , i.e. placing activities such as music, drama, sport, outdoor education, dance, at the centre of a young person’s school experience – and I would subscribe to that perspective.

Yet with the challenge facing public services of a 15% budget cut over the next three years I really fear for the place of any activities which are not perceived to be central to the traditional “educational” experience. Tha’s why I was pleased to see the EIS making such a strong stance on instrumental music. Of course I would go further and promote the place of every “life enriching” activity in a similar way.

There is of course a big “BUT” here – how do you take 15% out of a budget and at the same time argue that everything is sacrosanct?

I think we all have a responsibility to engage with the reality of the financial situation facing us and not just inhabit the moral higher ground and promote everything as a priority – regardless of cost. It’s only through such collective problem solving that we can get through this is a way which does not set us back 30 years.

Is there a finite limit to the reductions that can be made to a school’s budget?

Posted on December 20, 2009 by

So it’s agreed – public service budgets in the UK will be drastically reduced over the next 3-5 years. Depending on who you want to listen to the figures range from 12-20%. If that were to be translated against our £95 million education and children’s services budget in East Lothian it would be the equivalent of taking out £12.6 -£21 million.

Most local authorities in Scotland are working to make the necessary savings for 2010-2011. Some of the options they are considering would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Nevertheless, it’s not so much the challenge facing our public services in the coming year but the cumulative challenge over the 2- 4 years beyond that.

As part of that forward thinking it might help us if we could work out what the finite limit might be to deliver education in Scotland. This can be exemplified as follows in this hypothetical primary school.

Primary School X has 217 pupils. They are split up into classes as follows P1=25; P2=30; P3=30; P4=33; P5=33; P6=33; P7=33: School roll = 217.

All of the above classes are at their statutory maximum. Please note that such an even spread is very unlikely in any school, which usually leads to the creation of at least one or two additional classes to account for this spread. If composite classes (where children from more than one year group are in the same class) the legal maximum is 25 – likely to necessitate even more classes. It is also unusual to have all classes at their maximum as it does not leave any flexibility should additional pupils move into the area.

Whatever the spread of classes each will require a teacher. However, as a teacher can only teach 22.5 hours and a pupil’s school week is 25 hours the school would need to employ another teacher to teach 17.5 hours across the seven classes.

If the average teacher’s salary – with on-costs such as National Insurance and employer’s pension contributions – is £40K then the school salary costs for teachers would be £311,000.

For this exercise I’ll call this figure the Teaching costs.

But it’s not as simple as that for there are are other limits which must be calculated for this school. The list includes:

Teaching costs
Management costs: headteacher and other promoted posts
Pupil support: learning support assistants; playground supervisors, etc.
Administrative support: office and secretarial support
Specialist staff: physical education, art etc
Materials and resources: books, jotters, photocopying
Home to school transport
Repairs and maintenance
Energy costs
Water charges
ICT costs: replacements, keeping up with technology, consumables (bulbs, etc)
Teacher cover costs: staff absence, maternity/paternity leave, meetings
Travel costs
Rates

I’ll be developing this exercise over the next few weeks but whatever the results the answer to the question:

“Is there a finite limit to the reductions that can be made in a school’s budget”

then the answer is an absolute – YES.

Don Ledingham's Learning Log

“If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.” Albert Einstein

Category Archives: Budget