By Mike Baker BBC education correspondent

It was inevitable that schools and universities would be mere bridesmaids to the National Health Service on Budget Day.

It was always going to be the health service's big day.

But all is not lost: As is traditional, the bridesmaids caught the bouquet and with it the Chancellor's promise of their day of glory next.

Assuming Gordon Brown was choosing his words with care - something he usually does - then education should be a major winner in this summer's comprehensive spending review.

Indeed those close to Estelle Morris are convinced education will be second only to the NHS when the Chancellor announces his spending plans in July.

'Increase significantly'

The key words were Gordon Brown's promise "to increase significantly the share of national income devoted to education over the course of this parliament".

The "significantly" has delighted officials at the Department for Education who were quick to point out that this went further than the election manifesto which merely promised an "increase".

So a lot hangs on that one word "significantly".

With schools and universities increasingly fearful that all the available money would be eaten up by the NHS, the Chancellor went out of his way to promise that education will receive "the priority it requires to deliver further substantial improvements".

Gordon Brown also underlined that he had been listening to the concerns of the vice-chancellors and principals as he added that these improvements would apply "not just in our schools but also in our universities and colleges".

'All promise'

Nevertheless this was an IOU note from the Chancellor - not cash-in-hand.

Or, as the head teachers' leader, David Hart, has put it: "The budget is all promise and not a lot of delivery".

A broken promise, he warns, will mean "all hell will let loose".

The July spending announcement will certainly need to deliver for education as schools will be facing a bigger than expected bill for teachers' pay.

The teachers' pay rise will cost some �380m more than the government had allocated for it.

National insurance rise

Also the 1% increase in employers' national insurance contributions will cost local education authorities an estimated �140m for teachers alone. That cost will be passed onto school budgets.

Add in the contribution for other non-teaching staff and education budgets will take quite a hit from the national insurance changes.

In fact, there were a few small dollops of extra cash, described by the spin doctors as "down-payments".

For schools, there will be extra money for capital improvements and, once again, the chancellor has shown his preference for channelling money directly to head teachers rather than via the local education authorities.

The total extra money announced in the Budget was �272m.

Reallocated funds

However, that is slightly misleading as some of this money is actually a reallocation of funds the department failed to spend this year.

So the �87m directed to measures for tackling bad behaviour in classrooms is actually entirely drawn from cash the department had failed to spend in the financial year just ended.

This money will pay for more police presence in schools, electronic "swipe card" registration schemes and mentors.

The idea is to catch behavioural problems in the early stages before pupils are excluded from school.

Student finance

One other major announcement has also been postponed until the comprehensive spending review: the outcome of the major review of student grants and loans.

This review is now many months overdue as a result of wrangling within government.

The suggestion of a return to student grants, funded by some form of graduate tax, would cost the Treasury a large amount in the early years before these costs could be passed on to graduates.

This seems to have alarmed ministers and it now looks likely that, despite the fanfare that surrounded the prime minister's announcement of the review last October, it will not amount to the reintroduction of universal student grants.

An increase in hardship payments for the least well-off seems the most likely option.