How can two schools be so different

[Coatsnhatspls]

I'm genuinely wondering how this happens.

In Scotland, looking to move, visited 2 schools.

School A - roughly 25 pupils per year, often under only in 2 classes is it over and they are both 26. 3 school trips a year (panto in winter, topic related trip in spring and fun trip in the summer). Seems to have nice resources and do lots of activities for the kids. Several after school clubs, lots of support staff (TAs).
In a decent village, some run down parts but also new build estates.

School B - Also roughly 20/25 pupils per year. 1 school trip most years, none this year. No after school clubs, school feels tired but the building itself is newer than the other school. Seems like the resources are very old. Few TAs.
Also in a village, no better or worse than the other.

Surely these schools receive similar funding? How does this happen? Bad leadership?

AIBU to think it's really odd that these two schools are so different?

I'm not in Scotland so some of this might not be relevant:

In the U.K.

Some schools are church schools and get a lot of support - financial and otherwise - from their local church; others don't

Some have had a PTA for a long time which is very active and raises a lot of money for the school. You can't always predict in advance which schools these will be!

Also, not all funding is per pupil. Base funding is per pupil but there's also a lot of (for example) pupil premium funding, opportunity area funding etc.

Funding somewhere.

Maybe the one school has more kids getting pupil premium?
Maybe the other school has more costs and can't invest more into trips or repairs etc?
Or maybe the parents of one school can't afford to donate to cover the costs of trips?

It could be anything of a load of things.
Unless you get a look at the financials of the schools, you might never know.

one school is doing a better PR job than the other (and diverting education money to it, no doubt)

In terms of trips - presumably the parents are asked to fund those? The school isn't sending all the kids to the panto out of public funds for education! Parents would be asked, do you want your kid to go to the panto, please make a voluntary contribution of £x if so, if not enough people do we probably won't be able to put the trip on. Some parents are fine with that, others may be annoyed the school is constantly putting on expensive trips with "voluntary" contributions they're guilted into paying for. All well and good offering a European ski trip and the panto every year and a cinema treat at the end of term and PGL and coach trips to London for the theatre but if lots of parents would struggle to pay for that it doesn't work.

After school clubs are either run by teachers, basically in their own time (an add-on after teaching, pushing their prep time to the evening) or by external providers for £££ for parents. The teachers may not want to do it, and again, do enough parents want to pay. Again putting on "activities for the kids" - that's staff doing that on top of their normal jobs, or the PTFA stepping in and doing it.

The most expensive thing for schools is staff, and you can't always see how that is being spent - if you have a lot of kids with SEND, just getting suitably qualified staff in to support those kids eats a lot of budget and you wouldn't really see that as a parent looking at the school from the outside.

This, be very careful of judging on appearance

Not in Scotland, but do not estimate the power of PTA funding. It makes a huge difference at my child’s school. It can’t be spent on curriculum or staff, but it can pay for all sorts of bells and whistles that make for a more enriching or just more pleasant school experience.

For example, if the school needs special seating for special needs students, instead of buying it, they have the pta buy the chairs. The pta also buys a few extra per class because they turn out to be useful for all the students and that also reduces stigma. Since the school didn’t have to spend the money, they now have more money to fund TAs or to buy something the PTA isn’t allowed to buy.

It wouldn't be a voluntary contribution necessarily, if it is not curriculum related the cost can be compulsory. it has to be voluntary if curriculum related

As I understand schools receive a lot of extra funding through PEF which is linked to the deprivation indexation. My experience is that schools in poorer areas as nicer in terms of buildings and resources, have more PSAs, funded breakfast clubs, after school clubs etc.

More experienced expensive teachers
A debt on the newer school building being paid off
An easier demographic making trips and activities not too stressful for volunteers

Maybe the school with one trip (paid for by parents usually remember) has families with lower socio economic backgrounds so the school has the one so as to not put the families under financial pressure.

Maybe the PTA pays for lots of items at school for one and the poorer families can't sub all the PTA fund raising at the other.

What is happening on an education basis? That's what matters more surely?

That isn’t how I understand it works in Scotland. Teachers are budgeted for and allocated by the council and building are owned and paid for by the council

Interesting on the SIMD the first school is actually in the less deprived area vs the second, both are mainly "blue" with a little orange.

Easier demographic means trips are much less stressful. Same goes for after school clubs. If kids are well behaved, teachers are more likely to want to give up their time to run clubs. If the kids are regularly assaulting the teachers, the teachers might feel less inclined to run an after school club.

You can do more trips if the parents are more likely to be willing to pay too. Not so much of a parental ask.

poorer demographic means any PTA funds goes towards funding panto trips / residential etc for those kids who parents can’t afford to pay for the ticket. Good use of funds in my opinion. But in the ‘leafier’ areas PTA funds are more likely to be spent on nice to haves rather than essentials.

Oh I do wish that when the OP clearly states that she is in Scotland that people didn't post about pupil premium, "voluntary contributions", governors or church schools, none of which exist.

Both schools will be funded by the local authority. There was a flurry of new school building a few years ago, to get rid of the really old Victorian buildings which were no longer fit for purpose, both Primary and Secondary. Both will get the same funding from the local authority based on their roll. PTA funding is never used in Scotland to pay salaries, repair buildings or pay the electricity bill as this is all handled centrally by the local authority. PTA funds the extras which yes could be trips, or better resources, new playground equipment, after school clubs and activities. During Covid, where parents were not allowed into schools under any circumstances for 2 years, many PTAs just died a death and starting them up again is really difficult.

Often it's down to a combination of factors. One school might have a very proactive, go-getting Head or Deputy who is constantly hustling and pushing her school forward for every scheme going. We had a Head like this and got a big chunk of extra money from a special fund for schools on the flightpath for Glasgow airport, for example. We had parents who were prepared to come in and do the garden, litter pick, build wee greenhouses and whatever in the playground. A more affluent demographic means that the school can offer more ambititious trips, knowing that parents will pay and that the PTA will cover those who can't, or school will make other arrangements.

Pupil equity funding varies by school so some schools do get more funding. Hence why a school in a more deprived area would have more money