Slashing spending on education: what greater act of vandalism is there? A failure to invest in children will damage the prospects of this country for decades to come. No wonder the ever-diminishing Theresa May was jeered over her real-terms cuts in per-pupil spending in this week’s televised debate.

Threats to children’s wellbeing trigger visceral emotions in parents. But with schools facing up to £3bn worth of cuts, according to the National Audit Office, the potential of children and the nation as a whole is at risk. Per pupil, schools are facing a 7% cut in spending if the Tories win the majority craved by May. According to the National Union of Teachers, 93% of schools face per-pupil funding cuts, with an average cut of nearly £87,000 to primary schools and £370,298 to secondary schools.

Schools face years of funding cuts if Tories win election, say thinktanks Read more

That’s why May is facing an escalating, nationwide parents’ revolt. This year, Fair Funding for all Schools – a national network of parents united against school cuts – was launched. One of its driving forces is Joanna Yurky: last autumn, she went to her local high school opening day in Haringey, north London. The headteacher announced that he had no choice but to increase class sizes, because the only way to get more funding was to take on more students.

Yurky was shocked. Back in 1997, one of New Labour’s flagship policies was slashing school class sizes, and for good reason: as the Tories’ favoured educational thinktank, the pro-free schools New Schools Network puts it: “If managed well, small class sizes can be effective at raising public performance.” But Yurky soon found her story was replicated elsewhere. At other schools, she heard about parents being asked for money: not the odd one-off payment but regular contributions made by direct debit.

According to the National Union of Teachers, 93% of schools face per-pupil funding cuts

Then came the official reports, and not just the National Audit Office. In February, the Institute for Fiscal Studies announced that school funding per pupil would be slashed for the first time since the fag-end of John Major’s rule in the mid-1990s. Yurky and her allies met in a living room to start planning. On social media, they reached out to mothers in West Sussex and Wokingham, deep inside Tory territory.

Messing with children’s futures is, these mothers believe, a big mistake by the Tories, and could even be their poll tax. The proceeds of cake and jumble sales used to be spent on nice extras. Now, increasingly, they’re being used to pay for essentials. Whatever New Labour’s failings, their investment in education did pay off. It’s that investment – in smaller class sizes, sports, music, support staff and help for children with special educational needs – that’s now being put at risk.

Britain’s schools are already on their knees. Now they’re going to be gutted | Frances Ryan Read more

For Yurky, a parent-led movement was critical to changing the debate. And she’s right: Britain’s teachers have been vilified and undermined by newspapers and politicians alike, as though they were somehow selfish, vested interests. But when parents start joining marches, the government is right to be worried. These are far from militant rabble rousers, and demonstrations have included “picnic protests” held after school. Both Twitter and Facebook have proved essential in linking these activists up.

The whole situation could hardly sum up the philosophical divide in this election better. The Tories have failed to cost their manifesto, except for abolishing universal free school meals in favour of free breakfasts – worth 6.8p per pupil. Yet they have tried to savage Labour for having unaffordable plans, despite the party having costed them in full.

What could more firmly underline the key difference between the two biggest parties? A Tory party holding back the great, untapped potential of Britain; a Labour party arguing that, with sensible investment, that potential can be unleashed to benefit everyone, businesses included. We simply cannot afford these cuts to education, as these parent activists have pointed out.