Vocal Voices

A new report says that pupils from poorer backgrounds are 18 months behind when it comes to GCSEs - that is roughly two grades. Yet at the same time the claim is that 85% of pupils are in good or outstanding schools compared to just 66% in 2010.

The two cannot be right.

Another part claims that those on free school meals for at least 80% of their time in school are almost two years behind. What the hell is going on?

One issue has to be the funding formula.

London pupils, where standards have definitely risen, get about £1,300 more per year than the national average. Six of the seven poorest performing regions get less than the average. Coincidence?

To put that in context an average sized school (900 pupils) gets £1,170,000 more in London than the West Midlands. That money will get an extra 12 mid-range but experienced teachers = two per 180 pupil year group - £420,000. Five technical staff for varying subjects / support - £150,000. The remaining £600,000, if spent wisely, could get in all sorts of extra ancillary staff, text books, equipment and services.

With a funding formula like that it is no wonder that some areas do better than others.

Surely funding should depend on number of pupils in a school - so per pupil a set amount? Doesn't make sense otherwise.

OK, I do get that London housing prices are LOADS higher than most other places so yes salaries may need to be higher to accomodate that, but still - the discrepancies is astounding; and quite wrong

Yet at the same time the claim is that 85% of pupils are in good or outstanding schools compared to just 66% in 2010.

I would suggest that these days, the OFSTED ratings "good", "outstanding", "requires improvement" etc. are based on a range of criteria in which actual education - teaching - is only a small part …...

Gavin Williamson is our MP and he's been campaigning for a while for fairer pupil funding for this area so it'll be interesting to see if there're any changes made to how it's distributed now that he's the education secretary.

TheOstrich wrote:I would suggest that these days, the OFSTED ratings "good", "outstanding", "requires improvement" etc. are based on a range of criteria in which actual education - teaching - is only a small part …...

MrsC would agree with you Os.

Jo, there have been reviews (a review) or attempts, since about 2011 and there is obvious resistance from those who already get the most. There is a fear that because the resources are not there they will have their funding reduced - it's a natural reaction. But, as I said in my, OP funding is only part of the problem. Ossie hints at some, and there are still others that there is a reluctance to mention.

Intelligence is not a flat line. If it was we would all be geniuses or idiots, it is a bell curve with some of us more or less intelligent than others - however, it is an unpalatable truth and there are strong forces against it ever being mentioned.

There are quite a few factors for it - hereditary, cultural influences, lack of motivation, poor parenting, political interference etc. - and unless or until we are prepared to be open about them the gap between those who are seen to be at the top and those definitely at the bottom will never be closed.

Workingman wrote: There are quite a few factors for it - hereditary, cultural influences, lack of motivation,
poor parenting, political interference etc. -and unless or until we are prepared to be open about them the gap
between those who are seen to be at the top and those definitely at the bottom will never be closed.

.

That sums it up nicely, Frank. I quite agree, but I don't expect anything will ever be done to put matters right.