I read with dismay your report regarding primary heads and the implementation of planning, preparation and assessment time ("Primary heads hoard Pounds 750m", TES, May 6).
You imply primary heads hoard money for any other purpose but will not invest in PPA time. This is provocative, inaccurate and unfair.
As a new primary headteacher I feel this article only adds to the conflict and misinformation over PPA time and its successful implementation in September 2005. Your article misleads readers and encourages people to believe primary heads have sufficient funds but are uncooperative or unsupportive of the idea of PPA time.
This we may be, but not for the reason you state.
You highlight one school that has a budget surplus of nearly pound;700, 000. But on reading your article, I learned that thisso-called surplus has been allocated and spent on renovating the whole school.
I inherited a school with a deficit budget and our governing body want PPA time to be, in principle, covered by a qualified teacher. I believe PPA will be advantageous for primary teachers in the long term. However, in the short term it will prove to be a disaster.
There comes a time when enough is enough and a stand must be taken.
Over many years and successive governments funding for many primary schools has been inadequate in comparison with our secondary colleagues.
Perhaps The TES should campaign for fair funding for primary schools?
Lambourne primary school