Are some schools better funded than the others?
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Re: Are some schools better funded than the others?
And some schools benefit from a vibrant parent community that raises funds through the PSA and the like. If parents who are so keen to get their children into these good schools all made the effort to support the various fundraising events, schools would feel a lot less pressure.
Independent schools EXPECT parents to volunteer, attend, donate above and beyond fees, etc. A colleague’s spouse said it was almost a full-time job at their prep school.
(And not a single child in that prep school got a place in any ‘desirable’ secondary school for September 2015 entry. Cue parental outrage, a scrambling head, many concerned meetings... )
Some schools make better use of the money they have, however meagre it is.
Independent schools EXPECT parents to volunteer, attend, donate above and beyond fees, etc. A colleague’s spouse said it was almost a full-time job at their prep school.
(And not a single child in that prep school got a place in any ‘desirable’ secondary school for September 2015 entry. Cue parental outrage, a scrambling head, many concerned meetings... )Some schools make better use of the money they have, however meagre it is.
Buying online? Please support music at TGS. No cost to you. Fundraising makes a difference.
Tiffin Girls' School has a designated area; see the determined admission arrangements. Use the journey planner. Note the Admissions timetable and FAQs.
Tiffin Girls' School has a designated area; see the determined admission arrangements. Use the journey planner. Note the Admissions timetable and FAQs.
Re: Are some schools better funded than the others?
I do agree with that. I wonder how many of the parents who are moving heaven and earth to get children into schools miles from home are also doing their bit to boost school funds. Hopefully most of them.Stroller wrote: If parents who are so keen to get their children into these good schools all made the effort to support the various fundraising events, schools would feel a lot less pressure.
Personally I cannot stomach any kind of school social event (the words 'girls' night out' are some of the scariest in my world, along with 'quiz night' or 'pudding evening'), but I do support my sons' school financially in other ways and also by volunteering at the uniform shop. Everyone can do their bit and I do hope that most try in these days of terrible government cuts to education.
Re: Are some schools better funded than the others?
A couple of other thoughts (based on my dim memories of working in local authority finance in the 2000s)
Capital investment: There was a massive investment in school buildings (and ICT) in the 2000s called "Building Schools for the Future" . Many schemes were PFI funded (which has its own problems) but as I recall the schemes (which could include complete rebuilds) would have started in areas with the worst facilities -often (for historic reasons ) these were in poorer areas socially which means (for example) that Park Hall in Solihull had a complete rebuild ahead of other schools in more affluent parts of the Borough. The Wikipedia article gives a reasonable summary of the benefits and problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_ ... the_Future" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . The incoming Conservative government in 2011 scrapped the scheme leaving hundreds of school schemes on the drawing board. So this may explain the more obvious differences between school buildings - simply having been (or not) able to benefit from part of this funding
Revenue: (this is what pays for staff and ongoing costs). Historically this was part of the general pot of business rates and other tax income redistributed to local authorities based on a number of factors including deprivation indicators (and to which LAs also added their own council tax income) Local authorities could decide how to fund their own schools, education administration, ed psych, music and other shared services within that amount (obviously largely based on pupil numbers and historical/deprivation/transport factors). At some point Central Government decided to ring-fence schools education funding into a separate pot (part of the ongoing struggle between central and local tiers of government) plus the academy programme took some schools funding away from LAs altogether. Overall funding squeezes have usually been "softened" by giving guarantees on year-on-year funding, which of course leaves out any room for manoeuvre within the pot. The result is that schools within local authorities with historically high levels of per-pupil funding (due to deprivation and other factors averaged over the whole area) probably still have higher levels, wherever their pupils actually come from
Thus (to give a local example) - I would expect the Birmingham grammars still have an average higher rate of funding per pupil than a comprehensive over the border in Solihull or Warwickshire, even if many of the grammar school pupils live in Solihull or Warwickshire and are less "deprived". themselves. This is what gets Solihull politicians annoyed (ironically of course, many Birmingham pupils clamour for Solihull schools on the border) . It's rather an unholy mess
So tl;dr - there are historically different patterns of funding to different schools for (often) very good reasons, as some schools have more difficult catchments and therefore more costs. Successive Governments have tried to adjust this to suit their own agendas but those who stand to lose will always complain. Parents who can afford to support their children's education always will and arguably the state has some duty of care to those who are more disadvantaged -working out how to do this occupies many people for their entire careers
Capital investment: There was a massive investment in school buildings (and ICT) in the 2000s called "Building Schools for the Future" . Many schemes were PFI funded (which has its own problems) but as I recall the schemes (which could include complete rebuilds) would have started in areas with the worst facilities -often (for historic reasons ) these were in poorer areas socially which means (for example) that Park Hall in Solihull had a complete rebuild ahead of other schools in more affluent parts of the Borough. The Wikipedia article gives a reasonable summary of the benefits and problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_ ... the_Future" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . The incoming Conservative government in 2011 scrapped the scheme leaving hundreds of school schemes on the drawing board. So this may explain the more obvious differences between school buildings - simply having been (or not) able to benefit from part of this funding
Revenue: (this is what pays for staff and ongoing costs). Historically this was part of the general pot of business rates and other tax income redistributed to local authorities based on a number of factors including deprivation indicators (and to which LAs also added their own council tax income) Local authorities could decide how to fund their own schools, education administration, ed psych, music and other shared services within that amount (obviously largely based on pupil numbers and historical/deprivation/transport factors). At some point Central Government decided to ring-fence schools education funding into a separate pot (part of the ongoing struggle between central and local tiers of government) plus the academy programme took some schools funding away from LAs altogether. Overall funding squeezes have usually been "softened" by giving guarantees on year-on-year funding, which of course leaves out any room for manoeuvre within the pot. The result is that schools within local authorities with historically high levels of per-pupil funding (due to deprivation and other factors averaged over the whole area) probably still have higher levels, wherever their pupils actually come from
Thus (to give a local example) - I would expect the Birmingham grammars still have an average higher rate of funding per pupil than a comprehensive over the border in Solihull or Warwickshire, even if many of the grammar school pupils live in Solihull or Warwickshire and are less "deprived". themselves. This is what gets Solihull politicians annoyed (ironically of course, many Birmingham pupils clamour for Solihull schools on the border) . It's rather an unholy mess
So tl;dr - there are historically different patterns of funding to different schools for (often) very good reasons, as some schools have more difficult catchments and therefore more costs. Successive Governments have tried to adjust this to suit their own agendas but those who stand to lose will always complain. Parents who can afford to support their children's education always will and arguably the state has some duty of care to those who are more disadvantaged -working out how to do this occupies many people for their entire careers