AS predicted, the thorny issue of education funding managed to produce one final spat between Mike Foster and Peter Luff.

The dust-up took place just a few hours before the announcement of a 6.1 per cent funding increase for the county's schools and centred on an article written by Mr Foster for a Labour Party newsletter.

A copy of the article somehow fell into the possession of Mr Luff, who was upset about a passage on the fact local headteachers have £11m in unspent reserves.

Mr Foster wrote: "This is up by £3m in the last year. That's right, the very same head teachers protest about the lack of cash, they stuff an extra £3m in the bank and refuse to spend it on the pupils. You may think these accusations are pure hypocrisy.

I couldn't possibly comment.

In a Press release, Mr Luff said these comments were deeply insulting.

He said: Balances grow for many reasons. I know from many meetings with local schools that balances are often earmarked for future capital projects that span more than one financial year.

Often the Government showers specially- targeted money on schools at the end of a financial year and the schools just can't spend it that quickly.

And prudent budgeting does mean keeping some money in reserve in case some unforeseen need crops up.

I'm really sad that Mr Foster should attack the very people who are working to help their pupils so effectively.

Mr Foster later defended his remarks saying they were intended for a specific audience (his own party's supporters) to spark debate. He was simply making the point headteachers could not have it both ways after they criticised the Department of Education for having unspent funds while Worcestershire's schools went short.

It did not stop Mr Luff from making one last defence of the headteachers, though.

In the Commons debate which followed this year's spending settlement, he asked the Local Government Secretary if the size of the grant was a tribute to the effective lobbying by the county's headteachers and governors.