• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Sign in to follow this  
sarahbell

School cuts website

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, ad_ceng said:

Interesting I wonder which vested interest is behind it 

To be honest all schools should be private paid for by parents not the state 

 

Len McCluskey for one

The School Cuts website is supported by the National Education Union, the National Association of Head Teachers, the Association of School and College Leaders, Unison, Unite and GMB.

Stats watchdog rebukes School Cuts website for ‘misleading’ funding figures

Quote

The stats watchdog has rebuked the School Cuts website – run by a coalition of unions – for its use of “misleading” statistics that create a “worse picture” of school funding.

 

 

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ad_ceng said:

Interesting I wonder which vested interest is behind it 

To be honest all schools should be private paid for by parents not the state 

Do these look like Tory voters?

https://outlandish.com/

 

And hang on a MINUTE, who's this?

https://outlandish.com/blog/co-operatives/announcing-our-new-co-op-workspace-in-islington/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ad_ceng said:

Interesting I wonder which vested interest is behind it 

To be honest all schools should be private paid for by parents not the state 

Should be paid for by the children.

But the flip side is that the taxes any children subsequently pay throughout their lives should not in any way subsidise or provide any benefit to the childless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is there an assumption that the 'right' cost for a given school is a number from the recent past?  Is there something magical about 2015 (say) that makes it the 'correct' value?  Why not 2009 or 1989 or 1969?  Or maybe the monies paid to schools should always go up (inflation adjusted), because of some natural law*?

An alternative hypothesis is that there is 'right' number, but that it is quite hard to hit, and about half of the time a given school will be costing too much, and half too little.

And another hypothesis might be that there isn't a 'right' number, and that schools will spend what you give them, with the proviso that if you give them more then the education might be a little better, and if you give them less then the education might be a little worse -- but the impact of that better/worse education needs to be assessed at a country level (ie what educational levels are actually appropriate/needed).

And yet another hypothesis might be that it doesn't actually matter that much, and for the most part kids will work it all out so long as they've got someone to sort-of teach them.  Of course some might do badly because they need lots of attention or something (but what is the incremental cost for those few) and there might be a bit less 'extra' stuff like school shows, say (but what is the incremental cost of those shows), etc.  

Anyway, how much should schools cost?  I don't know.  I suppose I might say that they certainly cost much more (in inflation adjusted £s) than when I went decades ago, and there don't seem to be loads more genius kids running around, so maybe the extra money isn't worth it.  I might add that some of the additional money is spend on child welfare classes, citizenship classes, mental well-being classes, mindfulness classes -- and while that all sounds lovely I have a suspicion that it is correlated with the increase in child self-harm and general mental illness in recent years, so perhaps those additional classes aren't offering value for money.

[* well, the natural law that is 'all government departments and agencies will always spend all their money, and then ask for a little bit more'.  But that's just based on observation rather than theory]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schools and other such service issues are a symptom, not the problem to be gixed.  Yes, we should cut the number of schools(!) and many other things by cutting the number of people.

I left the countryside yesterday for a long torturous drive.  So many people.  Things are beyond crazy.  Takes an unboiled frog to see it.  Slave boxes everywhere.  And what do they all do that can have any real value other than "consume" so some fat cats can get fatter while we suffer the crap and pay for the schools and everything else.  With corporation tax the way it is, they don't. And being globalists, they have no vested interest in this particular country.  This attempt to goose GDP and further enrich the rich is insane. 

When will people take back their country.  When they walk away from the MSM and all the other instruments of control, so maybe never, certainly too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Hail the Tripod said:

My sons’ (state) schools seem to have more money than they know what to do with.

Stockport council is apparently the most underfunded for schools, for some reason. My kid's primary school was recently rebuilt on the same site as the old one was falling to bits and full of asbestos. Looks great, but it was painted over the summer by the teaching staff as they ran out of money. The fundraising activities are exhausting for the parents, let alone the staff, as they are constant. And this is used to fund staff places, not flashy iPads or anything like that. The cuts over the past few years equal something crazy like £3k per pupil. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LC1 said:

Stockport council is apparently the most underfunded for schools, for some reason. My kid's primary school was recently rebuilt on the same site as the old one was falling to bits and full of asbestos. Looks great, but it was painted over the summer by the teaching staff as they ran out of money. The fundraising activities are exhausting for the parents, let alone the staff, as they are constant. And this is used to fund staff places, not flashy iPads or anything like that. The cuts over the past few years equal something crazy like £3k per pupil. 

What does the school spend money on?

Show me the money. Too corny?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, spunko said:

Always the same. The blokes always look like soyboy cucks with subscriptions to blacked.com. The women look like lesbian "edgy" sarcastic twitter twats with "she/her" in her bio and loads of pictures of her with some african kids in Mozambique on her gap year, because you need to know what a virtuous person she is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dgul said:

Why is there an assumption that the 'right' cost for a given school is a number from the recent past?  Is there something magical about 2015 (say) that makes it the 'correct' value?  Why not 2009 or 1989 or 1969?  Or maybe the monies paid to schools should always go up (inflation adjusted), because of some natural law*?

An alternative hypothesis is that there is 'right' number, but that it is quite hard to hit, and about half of the time a given school will be costing too much, and half too little.

And another hypothesis might be that there isn't a 'right' number, and that schools will spend what you give them, with the proviso that if you give them more then the education might be a little better, and if you give them less then the education might be a little worse -- but the impact of that better/worse education needs to be assessed at a country level (ie what educational levels are actually appropriate/needed).

The site also gives a raw number, for example my old school says Conservative -£311 Labour + £163... -£311 from what, £1,000, £10,000, £1,000,00?

Dig in to the numbers and the school above it's £6468.86 per pupil, £311 and £163 don't seem quite so drastic now. Is £6468 enough to educate a pupil?

Sure a cut is a cut and an increase is an increase, but... I'm not convinced at all that Labour figure is accurate given they just announced a max class size of 30. The data used "Schools block fundingallocations2018to 2019" has no reference or data for pupil to teacher allocation and so I'm not sure how they can accurately work out a figure without that key bit of information.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harley said:

Schools and other such service issues are a symptom, not the problem to be gixed.  Yes, we should cut the number of schools(!) and many other things by cutting the number of people.

I left the countryside yesterday for a long torturous drive.  So many people.  Things are beyond crazy.  Takes an unboiled frog to see it.  Slave boxes everywhere.  And what do they all do that can have any real value other than "consume" so some fat cats can get fatter while we suffer the crap and pay for the schools and everything else.  With corporation tax the way it is, they don't. And being globalists, they have no vested interest in this particular country.  This attempt to goose GDP and further enrich the rich is insane. 

When will people take back their country.  When they walk away from the MSM and all the other instruments of control, so maybe never, certainly too late.

Superb post. I love in rural Herefordshire and there is traffic everywhere. People everywhere. Huge amounts of new housing everywhere. The true UK population must be ridiculously high. Loved the boiled frog comment. We are being bullshitted  on a monumental level. About everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-£17/head with the evil Tory cunts at my old governing place.

Now, I know for a fact, as I had to listen to the headteacher having a whinge at me at the xmas do last night, that just the 3 worse teachers n TA having time off - one for 3 months now, is costing about £100./head.

If you added up the cost of 'sickness' above 10 days a year/staff then it would come to a very large sum- cost of teachers salary and standin.

Ie not seen a public sector orgwhere 'funding cuts' could be solved by ensuring staff dont take more than 10 days non medical i.e. DR signed off sick leave.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

What does the school spend money on?

It's a good school and we're very happy with it, but brimming with shiny new resources it isn't. The constant fundraising (dipping into parents' pockets in creative and "fun" ways) is to cover the shortfall caused by cuts and maintain essential teaching activities at their current level, as I understand it. Either that or lose a member of staff or two, probably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, LC1 said:

Stockport council is apparently the most underfunded for schools, for some reason. My kid's primary school was recently rebuilt on the same site as the old one was falling to bits and full of asbestos. Looks great, but it was painted over the summer by the teaching staff as they ran out of money. The fundraising activities are exhausting for the parents, let alone the staff, as they are constant. And this is used to fund staff places, not flashy iPads or anything like that. The cuts over the past few years equal something crazy like £3k per pupil. 

Id like to see that.

Average spend/head is about 5k.

A 3k cut would mean 2k/head spend.

Most fundign cuts tend to be all the extra bollocks given to SEN kids who turn out not to be SEN kids.

 

 

5 minutes ago, LC1 said:

It's a good school and we're very happy with it, but brimming with shiny new resources it isn't. The constant fundraising (dipping into parents' pockets in creative and "fun" ways) is to cover the shortfall caused by cuts and maintain essential teaching activities at their current level, as I understand it. Either that or lose a member of staff or two, probably.

Id have a serous look at the schools spending.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LC1 said:

Stockport council is apparently the most underfunded for schools, for some reason. My kid's primary school was recently rebuilt on the same site as the old one was falling to bits and full of asbestos. Looks great, but it was painted over the summer by the teaching staff as they ran out of money. The fundraising activities are exhausting for the parents, let alone the staff, as they are constant. And this is used to fund staff places, not flashy iPads or anything like that. The cuts over the past few years equal something crazy like £3k per pupil. 

Ours apparently has a total spend per pupil of £3,572, with £2,418 of that being teaching staff costs (1 teacher for 30+ kids, with part time teaching assistant). More than half the pupils don’t have English as a first language at home. 

PTA fundraising tends to cover additional music and swimming lessons, and the most luxurious school library you can imagine. Honestly the school library wouldn’t look out of place at Eaton Square School (the Mayfair billionaires private school of choice). And iPads for all of years 5 and 6.

Edit to add: Actually “English as an additional language” (not the first language at home) has dropped to less than half this year, at only 46%. There’s at least one nearby that is over 90%.

Edited by Hail the Tripod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spygirl said:

Average spend/head is about 5k.

A 3k cut would mean 2k/head spend.

...

Id have a serous look at the schools spending.

Sounds like I must've got that wrong then. But it has now motivated me to make some proper enquiries rather than just listen to Chinese whispers as drop-off time.

15 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

PTA fundraising tends to cover additional music and swimming lessons, and the most luxurious school library you can imagine. 

Not so for us. Apart from the nice new building, everything else is very much not luxurious! The regional differences are strange... :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, maynardgravy said:

My boy's in pre-school. He has a teacher and TWO permanent classroom assistants - TWO for one class!!! in pre-school!!

My son's dad is harder than your son's dad! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/12/2019 at 11:53, LC1 said:

It's a good school and we're very happy with it, but brimming with shiny new resources it isn't. The constant fundraising (dipping into parents' pockets in creative and "fun" ways) is to cover the shortfall caused by cuts and maintain essential teaching activities at their current level, as I understand it. Either that or lose a member of staff or two, probably.

Pledging to equalise school funding around the country:

Will Labour try to make mileage out of this being racist because the beneficiaries will be poor white areas, and the losers will be the urban ethnic ghettos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/12/2019 at 10:37, Harley said:

Schools and other such service issues are a symptom, not the problem to be gixed.  Yes, we should cut the number of schools(!) and many other things by cutting the number of people.

I left the countryside yesterday for a long torturous drive.  So many people.  Things are beyond crazy.  Takes an unboiled frog to see it.  Slave boxes everywhere.  And what do they all do that can have any real value other than "consume" so some fat cats can get fatter while we suffer the crap and pay for the schools and everything else.  With corporation tax the way it is, they don't. And being globalists, they have no vested interest in this particular country.  This attempt to goose GDP and further enrich the rich is insane. 

When will people take back their country.  When they walk away from the MSM and all the other instruments of control, so maybe never, certainly too late.

Same with me. I drove the back way through a nearby village the other day. Usually use the bypass, but theres a garden centre i wanted something from,...I knew they were building elsewhere in the village, massive developments, but now the garden centre is gone too...in process of becoming yet another housing estate. Similar happening in other villages I used to cycle to ten years back when I was a keen cyclist, but bypasses mean I never really go round them in the last 5 or so years. Literally a case of blink and you'll miss it. Fields being built over at rates i've never seen. 

3 hours ago, Hail the Tripod said:

Pledging to equalise school funding around the country:

Will Labour try to make mileage out of this being racist because the beneficiaries will be poor white areas, and the losers will be the urban ethnic ghettos.

Last time I looked, Cambridgeshire got something like £4000 per child, Tower Hamlets £8000. Wonder what the main demographic difference is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By MrPin
      Are literacy rates affected by the complexity of the written language?
      fairly easy) Spanish, Italian, German
      more difficult) English, Russian, Korean
      kin ard) Arabic,
      kin fuckin ard) Chinese, Japanese
      Or do people make more effort to learn 200 0Chinese characters?
    • By One percent
      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-44954587
      The fugitive wife of a "fat cat banker" who's spent £16m in Harrods is battling to keep her London mansion after the UK's first use of a new power to combat international corruption.
      The woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, is challenging a demand by the National Crime Agency that she reveal the source of her wealth or face losing her British properties.
      The hearing at the High Court is the first time the agency has used an "Unexplained Wealth Order" to force a suspected corrupt foreign official and his family to account for their riches.
       
      Spent 16 million in harrods alone. It’s beyond me where you would start with this. 
      Lets repeat. 16 million. In a glorified department store. How?  Wtf did she buy?
    • By sarahbell
      Homeowners release record £3 billion equity in 2017
      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/financial-services/retirement-solutions/equity-release-service/equity-release-schemes-popularity
      It is clear that unlocking housing wealth has an increasingly i mportant role to play in helping older
      people pay for later life. Analysis from the Equity Release Council earlier this year estimated that
      total homeowner equity in England has reached an unprecedented £2.6 trillion, with £1.8 trillion
      belonging to over-55 households. Customer data suggests that those using equity release have
      homes worth around 25% more than was the case just three years ago
       
      http://www.equityreleasecouncil.com/document-library/equity-release-market-report-autumn-2017/
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.