Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think this is a ridiculous reason for requesting a voluntary payment

109 replies

NeedsAsockamnesty · 06/05/2016 09:38

A school local to me has been in te local paper because it is requesting a voluntary contribution towards GCSE exams the suggested donation is £40 something pounds per exam or the average cost of a child's exams.

It's a grammar school.
The head is quoted in the paper as saying "we receive next to no pupil premium or additional learning support funds like other schools do"

Then going on to explain that because they don't have this they are on a tighter budget than other schools.

The only 'additional learning support funds' I can think of are SEN/ECHP funds and my understanding of PP funding is that if you have the kids who qualify then you get it (same as the ECHP funding).

It seams very silly that a educated headmaster would not realise that if he does not get the funding this means he does not have the kids who qualify in his school and then winge about it.

If he did have it would he use it to fund the GCSEs and then the kids who need it would not have it used for them?

OP posts:
AgeingArtemis · 06/05/2016 11:06

Yes mattdillonspants, obviously I know grammar schools are state.

I was just genuinely surprised that if you have to pay at a private school (where you might expect such costs to be included in the fees) I assumed that naturally you had to pay at a state school as well.

I'm absolutely not saying paying for exams is a good thing- I think they should be free for under 18s- but I didn't know that in some schools you don't have to pay.

Head teacher sounds like an idiot btw, the pupil premium is not for that purpose

acasualobserver · 06/05/2016 11:16

We also suspected it was to allow them to manipulate the league tables, because self-paying students could be counted as independent students ( like home ed kids who have to take the actual exam in an invigilated setting) and therefore discounted from the results table.

No, schools are not able to remove students from the official exam result statistics in this way.

BertrandRussell · 06/05/2016 11:21

Our local grammar is doing this too- and complaining that the high school has so much more money- carefully ignoring his school's almost complete absence of AEN children and complete absence of children on FSM....

Original poster
NeedsAsockamnesty · 06/05/2016 12:01

Will nobody think of the 'squeezed middle' and their problems? What do you want this headmaster to do - start admitting poor children? Pft. The parents need to cough up

That's exactly what I think the school should do. The way I see it they have a few options.

A. Admit children who qualify for the funding
B. Don't covert the funding for children who have a disadvantage and wish to use it for children who don't.
C.accept you are selective
D. Don't make an arse of yourself in the paper by showing a compleate disregard for vulnerable children

OP posts:
Winterbiscuit · 06/05/2016 12:29

Grammar schools are not private

The ones in the few areas which still have state grammars aren't, but a lot of schools with "Grammar" in their name became private schools.

Original poster
NeedsAsockamnesty · 06/05/2016 12:38

This one is not private.

It is a state school.

OP posts:
RaskolnikovsGarret · 06/05/2016 12:39

Our local grammar school has excellent results, but is very shabby and fun down, with poor facilities and school trips etc. The local comprehensives are gorgeous, full of the latest technology, modern toilets etc., but with poorer results. Does that imply the comps are not using PP to help the pupils, but on the building instead? Or is it because the grammar is smaller, so gets less money in absolute terms, so can't benefit from economies of scale?

I know next to nothing about school funding btw.

RaskolnikovsGarret · 06/05/2016 12:40

I agree with OP btw.

KeithLeMonde · 06/05/2016 12:44

Casuaobserver is correct that schools can't remove students from their results by entering them as private candidates.

TBH I would take things like this in the paper with a pinch of salt. A colleague in another school had a situation where a parent took to the local press to suggest that the school were charging his child exam fees because he had SEN. In fact, the parent was asking for the child to have a separate exam room and invigilator despite being unwilling to provide any medical evidence of the apparently-recently-diagnosed SEN. School refused the request on the grounds that it would unfairly advantage the student but also mentioned the cost of providing a separate invigilator. This became "My SEN child is being charged to take his exams".

herecomethepotatoes · 06/05/2016 13:18

NeedsAsockamnesty

There was a rigorous entrance exam plus the actual cost of attending.

It isn't allowed any more as it's basically fraud, I assume, but I had to pay for my French exam as I was predicted a C.

//---------

RaskolnikovsGarret

Our local grammar school has excellent results, but is very shabby and fun down, with poor facilities and school trips etc. The local comprehensives are gorgeous, full of the latest technology, modern toilets etc., but with poorer results. Does that imply the comps are not using PP to help the pupils, but on the building instead? Or is it because the grammar is smaller, so gets less money in absolute terms, so can't benefit from economies of scale?

Because the brightest and most academic students are being abandoned whereas the ever increasing number of children being 'diagnosed' with every kind of reason under the sun for their struggles in school attract fortunes in funding.The most unfair of these being pupil premium.

The reason the grammar gets better results is:

  1. the children are naturally more academic when they get there
  2. academic children are more likely to come from academic parents and parents who support the school and the pupils
  3. they can get on and learn without disruptive students taking a disproportionate amount of the teacher's time
  4. good teachers, good management and interested pupils are far more important than fancy new IT suites.
Original poster
NeedsAsockamnesty · 06/05/2016 14:48

keith

This was an actual quote directly from the head. He actually stated that they were at a disadvantage because they didn't have any of the mentioned funding and that's why they were asking

OP posts:
Original poster
NeedsAsockamnesty · 06/05/2016 14:50

Here come.

Why do you think the pupil premium is so unfair?

And talking about formally diagnosed conditions that tend to attract the ECHP funding like that is incredibly silly

OP posts:
escapedfrommordor · 06/05/2016 14:55

Weird. Never had to pay for ours at private school. Never heard of it before.

BertrandRussell · 06/05/2016 15:00

Of course you pay for them at private schools!

BertrandRussell · 06/05/2016 15:03

"Because the brightest and most academic students are being abandoned whereas the ever increasing number of children being 'diagnosed' with every kind of reason under the sun for their struggles in school attract fortunes in funding.The most unfair of these being pupil premium.

Bollocks.

Oh, and please don't ask people to explain again why comprehensive schools and secondary modern schools don't get such good results as grammar schools!

herecomethepotatoes · 07/05/2016 04:37

escapedfrommordor

Weird. Never had to pay for ours at private school. Never heard of it before.

BertrandRussell

Of course you pay for them at private schools!

You may not pay for them as a separate cost. At the school my sons attend, the fees increase every year. I suspect a part of that is the cost of examination fees. There is no separate cost for the exams. It's included in the fees.

From nursery to upper 6th your statement only has three things, lunches, school fees and extra-curricular costs (for some after school clubs).

Bollocks

Clever and informative. Thanks.

Oh, and please don't ask people to explain again why comprehensive schools and secondary modern schools don't get such good results as grammar schools!

I didn't. I said why they did.

needsAsock

My reason for thinking it's unfair is from this line from the gov website.

"If a pupil has been registered as eligible for free school meals... they will attract the £1,900 rate."

I'm not arguing for a second against the free meals, but why should the school get an extra £2k for a pupils' education because of the parents' financial situation? It costs the same to teach them.

honkinghaddock · 07/05/2016 06:15

Children from disadvantaged backgrounds are far less likely to achieve good exam results. The government believes that it is unacceptable for a child's success to be determined by their social circumstances. Looked after children are also eligible.
Obviously some people will disagree with this and think that all children should get the same regardless of their difficulties but thankfully that is not how most people think.

TormundGiantsbabe · 07/05/2016 06:43

Jesus wept. Pupil premium is unfair.

Fiona80 · 07/05/2016 06:46

We had voluntary fees at the grammar I went to, not sure ho many parent have them, mine certainly didn't.

Ditsy4 · 07/05/2016 06:52

Pupil premium is/ should be spent on extra support for those pupils. It helps schools to provide TAs to give additional support in class and in exams( reading questions say in Maths) and for providing extra support in the form of extra lessons after school, Nurture Groups or ELSA groups.
Grammar schools are less likely to accommodate children eligible. It is appalling that they have gone to the paper about this.

ChalkHearts · 07/05/2016 07:01

All school budgets are stripped to the bone. There isn't a HT in the country who doesn't need more money.

This is a voluntary payment. One which most parents - at that school - will pay. Which is why he asks.

Other schools ask for a monthly voluntary payment. Is that any better?

Lots of grammar schools now give top priority to PP pupils. But they still have to pass the 11+. They can't change the pass mark due to the laws around grammar schools.

peacheshoney · 07/05/2016 07:31

I used to think the same thing- that GS was chronically underfunded.but since the school had a new ht and more savvy governors, we have had loads of major new builds.this makes me think that funding is there if you know how to access it. Wonderful capital assets improve revenue bye obtaininf letting income

peacheshoney · 07/05/2016 07:36

Brighter parents generally have better jobs.brighter parents generally gave brighter children.this is why there are so few desperately poor children at grammar school.it is nothing to do with unfairness

Headofthehive55 · 07/05/2016 07:57

I agree peaches even at my DDs selective private school, those whose parent had attended Oxbridge went there, those whose parents went to RGs went there and those whose parents made money via running a business tended to do less well.

Mumoftwoyoungkids · 07/05/2016 08:25

Brighter parents generally have better jobs.brighter parents generally gave brighter children.this is why there are so few desperately poor children at grammar school.it is nothing to do with unfairness

That is one of the reasons. It is not the only reason:-

Better off parents can afford to pay a tutor
Parents with a high level of education are more likely to understand the grammar school system and encourage application
Parents with a high level of education will find it easier to help child with school work
Well off parents will find it easier to give child a quiet space to study in

Pretty sure I've read a study that claimed that an average ability child from a middle class home is more likely to go to grammar school than a high ability child from a deprived home.