UK school funding crisis and immigration

No-one is mentioning it yet, but the UK school funding crisis is the result of the out-of-control immigration.

The core problem is the number of students keeps rising, even though the domestic indigenous "white" population is declining.

This article from 2015 illustrates the population issues

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...UK-no-longer-white-British.html#ixzz4bZNSGcI9

or even from 2001
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1556901.stm

Unfortunately all the media on this seems to focus on race, but the issue is really age- demographic. It seems all migrant groups settle into this low-birth rate cycle after a generation, and also there is an indication that migrants to the UK have a higher birth rate than in their home country.

It seems to be the case that people migrate when they are most fertile. We take immigration as means to bolster working age population, but it seems they also have a disproportional impact on the cost of the sub-working age population.

Theresa May told the Conservative Conference when immigration is too high ‘it is impossible to build a cohesive society’

 

So it appears the EU Leave voters were not making it up when they made the claim about a strain on school places in England.

 

In part sure, but it’s not going to be the only factor. There’s a limit to what can be done about that, especially in the immediate term, so it’s not especially relevant to the current funding disputes.

The immigrant populations with the high birth-rates are generally ones from outside the EU though. If anything, leaving the EU risks leading to an increase in this kind of issue.

 

UK schools have seen budget freezes for years now and teachers leaving due to poor conditions. Our birth rates aren't particularly high historically, so it all being down to immigrants birth rates doesn't stack up either.

This is not to say immigration hasn't put a strain on some public services, but it is not the overall funding and use they have really affected, rather the effect in particular areas. Areas such as Boston have seen very high migration and the government hasn't been willing to give the services additional funding they require. It is also worth pointing out migration has been vital to recent GDP growth and government tax receipts (which should then be used to help these areas...).

Groups with higher birthrates aren't EU migrants generally either. A polish 20 something coming to the UK to work (and pay tax) for a few years doesn't put a strain on much at all.

 

Public schools in many countries have the same sort of problem.

But, that shouldn't be used as a pretext for indiscriminate immigrant bashing.

 

The BBC attributes it to something different:

"This is because schools are bearing the brunt of unfunded rises in pay, pension and National Insurance contributions, which will account for between 6% and 11% of their budgets by 2019-20." http://www.bbc.com/news/education-39292344

 

You're correct, nothing can be done about the current situation, but until the details of Brexit are known, it is relevant to considering whether it will be a recurring and increasing problem, and therefore relevant to considering how we deal with this year's issue.

I note the last line of Theresa May from when she was home secretary that i put in bold.

that was my opening assumption as well, but upon looking into the phenomenon it was bourne out across ethnicity. In fact it was specifically the Eastern European EU migrants to which the "higher birth rates than their even in their home countries" was identified.

 

Why and how is this immigrant bashing? I am an immigrant. I have more children than the national average of either my home country or my adopted country. This applies to me, too.

I have another sibling here, and the same thing. My two siblings in my home country have no children.

As a society we simply must break free of the mindset that it is somehow immoral to talk about these issues. It is fundamentally critical to the very running of our basic social infrastructure.

 

Wait until they find out how many costly special needs students they will have from those portions of the immigrant population that practice incest.

 

Yes, and the BBC editorial team seem very reluctant to report of these types of issues. That is, in my opinion, a contributory reason why Remain lost the Brexit election, because people's personal experiences did not chime with the reporting, and therefore they lost faith in all the media reporting.

Look at what it says: rises in pay, pension and NI. When was the last time you heard of a massive pay rise for teachers? What is driving these increases is the total number of teachers required because of the rise in pupil numbers. Pay is of course the most significant expense of a school and it is directly variable to the number of pupils being taught.

Here is how the BBC described the problem 6 months ago:

Extra 750,000 school places needed in population surge
"The increase has been driven by a rising birth rate - and the analysis says this reflects an increasing number of non-UK born mothers, who tend to have bigger families."​

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36796999

 

I am not aware of any support for that assertion and if you don't mind, I would prefer this thread not to be derailed by judgemental opinions, particularly unfounded ones.

 

This is what happens when you have more takers than givers.

Europe is doomed.

The same thing will happen here if the 9th circuit gets it's way.

 

I do not see an extra 30 students per school on average as being back-breaking on the system. The implementation of performance related pay and the elimination of pay portability for teachers who move between schools seem to be a bigger concerns for teachers than classroom sizes in the UK.

 

No its funding:
A Department for Education spokeswoman said the government had already committed £7bn to the "top priority" of creating school places, which along with more free schools, would provide 600,000 more places in the next five years.

 

Doomed , doomed I tell ya!
I think generally the immigrants that the UK have taken provide more than they take. Its just that the soft infrastructure can't keep up with the flow.
As for Europe, its more the refugee / non-EU immigration than immigration in general. I think most EU countries are OK with the current levels of intra-EU immigration.
Nonetheless, the soft infrastructure issues remain regardless of the source of the immigration.

 

It has been exacerbated by short view austerity policies. EU migration has (as you say) shown to be a net contributor in economic terms (taken into account use of public services like schools). It has been a failure of governance, utilising the resources available.

Non-EU migration has hit harder with use of services, mainly because they have been around long enough and most have stayed, raised children and are now using lots of medical/social care in old age. In the same way the native population has also been a net 'taker'.

If the Tories had put adequate funding into creating school places, maintaining teaching staff and the like rather than pursue Gove's pet project of Free schools (which billions have been sunk into, with no evidence to back up why they did it) then it would be less of an issue.

 

Which works out to be about the same per capita spending for these students as is seen now in London, which is where I assume a great many of them already live anyway.

 

A certain segment of the Muslim Arab population inbreeds by marrying first cousins, etc to keep family assets "in the family". Unfortunately they also double up genetically on recessive genes that are often harmful, and it leads to a much higher than average special needs population of schoolkids. I have posted on this previously, with references, and suggest you do your own Googling on the issue.

 

A person can express the fact that the influx is unmanageable without being accused of "bashing".
California experienced the same phenomenon. There were so many immigrants the schools were buried in expenses that caused a decline in quality. The school breakfast and lunch programs that are free for low income kids, the after school programs, the ESL programs ... in many Los Angeles public schools there were ESL classes to address up to 20 different foreign languages in a single school! Immigrants and aliens are heavy on the system. Add all the rest of the social engineering in demand, and education hasn't a chance.

 

I'm afraid I couldn't make sense of this post. Which students are you referring to? Per capita spending is precisely the problem where the capita is rising. Would you please rephrase?

Although London is the single most popular destination and has the highest % immigrant population, the majority of the UK's immigrants do not live in London.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-an-overview/

What is also interesting is that the recent growth of immigrant populations appear to be concentrated outside of London. This might be London immigrants moving outward on top of direct newcomer immigration.

 

It's not. Liberals here are not big on actual facts. Too many people taking and not enough giving. Europe, including England, has a major immigration and financial problem they are not addressing properly.

 

I am happy to engage on the topic on the other thread, if you post the link.

 

The numbers you provided works out to be around 6800 pounds per student; the current per capita spending on students in London is around 6600 pounds. Less outward of London. Think I read somewhere it varies wildly on the midlands, but still less than London.

 

I am not fully on top of Free Schools, but my understanding is that they can be part-funded independently, and the per-pupil cost to the government is supposed to be the same.
The idea is to diminish the government cost of new school places.

But the underlying pressure is still from the need for new school places (given, of course, that the UK government has less money).

In terms of the cost v income / revenue, I take the stats at face value but will highlight two considerations that might be worth considering:

1. Whether the GDP created by the immigrant would not otherwise be generated by the economy

I raise this because someone posted to me the most bizarre article titled "How immigration is fuelling Sweden's economic boom":

"Immigration has helped fuel Sweden's biggest economic boom in five years.... by increased spending on welfare for asylum seekers from war torn countries like Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-refugee-crisis-tory-conference-a7347136.html

Now if a large proportion of the "revenue generated" by immigrants in the UK is actually just the additional economic activity generated by servicing them, I think that we could generate the same effect by spending the same amount but in ways that improve the lives of the indigenous population. I'm just raising it as a question mark, because I haven't done the research, and only because that article was such a slap in the face.​

2. The incremental cost of enlarging social infrastructure is higher than the per-person average cost.

In terms of this discussion this point is more relevant. When we look at the "cost" of their children, we generally take the cost of, say education in the UK and divide it by the total number of children to give an average cost.

But it doesn't work like that. If you have to increase the education provision by another 600,000 school places, you have to build more schools. Hence the additional cost of the extra children is far higher than the average cost of the pupils that are using existing infrastructure.
​

 

Sorry to turn this around once more, I think you may be referring to the £7bln for 600,000 new places, which would be roughly 11,600 pounds per additional student.
I took the 7bln to be the capital expenditure on new physical infrastructure, so that the operating cost per student is additional to that.

Now the 7bln is on the capital account so the annual "expense" (depreciation) is 1/30th of that, and would then be applied across new and existing pupils to get the average "per pupil" cost, but clearly in cash terms each additional place would appear to be 11.5k additional cash upfront, and the impact to government borrowing occurs from the cash impact.