School campaigners deny using pupils as `political pawns'

Tory MPs' claim of manipulation in battle against education cuts angers parents and teachers

Conservative backbenchers yesterday angered schools and parents by accusing them of making "immoral" use of children in their battle against education cuts.

Members of the Conservative backbench 1922 Committee complained at a meeting on Thursday night that their large mail bags from parents and children about cuts were the result of a campaign by Labour local authorities.

Sir Gerard Vaughan, MP for Reading East, said he had received a letter from a dyslexic boy who wrote that the special help he received would disappear.

"It is really immoral and quite wicked for the local authorities to spread these fears . . . They are using children as political pawns."

Cuts in school budgets, which councils say are the worst for 30 years, have provoked widespread campaigning by parents and governors.

Ministers say spending on education will rise by 1.1 per cent in cash terms this year, but councils say this fails to take account of 2.5 per cent inflation and a similar rise in pupil numbers.

Official figures analysed by Don Foster, the Liberal Democrat education spokesman, show that the average cut in real terms will be 2.5 per cent (£50) for every primary pupil and 6.9 per cent (£194) for every secondary pupil.

In some places cuts will be worse. In Northumberland, Sheffield, Sutton and Sunderland, secondary cuts will top 8 per cent. In Liverpool, Kirklees, Havering and Bromley, primary education will be cut by more than 4 per cent.

Large secondary schools facing the average cut expect to increase class sizes, reduce book buying and make teachers redundant. If the Government refuses to fund their pay award in full, schools will have greater difficulties. The teachers' pay review body is due to report shortly. A leaked letter from Gillian Shephard, Secretary of State for Education, to Cabinet colleagues warns that thousands of people may face the sack.

Parents across the country are writing to MPs, preparing to lobby Parliament and getting ready to take part in protest marches, but they deny that children are being manipulated in the campaign.

Margaret Morrissey of the National Federation of Parent Teacher Associations said: "Children watch television and read newspapers. The Government delegated budgets to schools and wanted parents to have more information. Sir Gerard doesn't like the fact that children and parents understand that schools are facing horrendous cuts."

In Oxfordshire, where there is a vigorous anti-cuts campaign, Bob Osborne, a parent at Cherwell Comprehensive, which may face cuts of up to £135,000, said: "There is a genuine outcry because this is completely different from anything we have ever seen before. Every school in the county is thinking in terms of losing at least three teachers."

Martin Roberts, headteacher of Cherwell, said he had planned a small group of heads and governors to lobby MPs, but his parents and governors wanted to charter trains for a mass lobby pf Parliament. Oxford parents were organising a protest march for today.

In Shropshire, three school governing bodies have said that they will resign if the cuts go ahead. Parents and teachers have formed a group called Joint Action In Shropshire Schools.

Both local authority associations have written to their members suggesting that they alert schools to the implications of the cuts. This month councils have been meeting headteachers to tell them how much their schools will lose.

Heads have passed the information to parents, but councils insist they are not telling schools to involve children. Andrew Dakin, assistant chief education officer in Berkshire, home of Sir Gerard's constituency, said: "I know of no school which has asked children to write. We would refute very strongly any suggestion that we have asked them to do so. We have simply made the point in a letter to heads that if they wanted to write they must do so quickly."

The Government's reply to protesters is that councils still have scope to make efficiency gains and it is up to them to decide how they divide money between services.