State funding - gender differences in spending?

[financialliability]

Hello

The spending and financial information has arrived from the Education Minister and I have noticed some interesting local trends - how exciting, I hear you cry!

cover page

The links down the RHS go to the different areas and their spending on education. I don't know how to link to the spreadsheets so...

It appears that spending per pupil in state funded single sex schools is greater for boys than girls, in the same local area.

For example...

Two single sex Kent schools in the same area:

Girls state funding per pupil, per year: £4249

Boys state funding per pupil, per year: £4715

A difference of £466 per year, where if you are a boy in this area, attending the boys school, almost £500 per year extra will be spent on your education. These are schools where the pupils are supposed to come from similar economic and ability backgrounds, so no apparent reason for the difference, other than gender...

It doesn't seem like a lot of money, but when you add this up over a whole school it is almost half a million pounds per year extra invested in the boys' education. (School sizes in this case are approx 1000 pupils in each school)

I have looked about 5 sets of 'paired' single gender schools in the same area IYSWIM and this does seem to be the trend.

What's going on?

Thought it was worth letting the worthies of MN know how skewed the funding seems to be where gender is concerned. Boys get more spent on their education. Why?

Personally I think this is completely wrong if the pupils have the same background and ability, then surely they should have the same amount of state funding to develop their education?

I know it's not quite as exciting as the BF weaning story , but I do think it's significant and terribly unfair and we need to question this trend of apparently penalising girls financially where their education is concerned.

Might it be because there is a greater number of boys who need help with learning difficulties and this cost more, or is the funding for this accounted for separately?

No - nothing to do with SEN fnding.

These schools are largely selective so have the same ability co-hort and the funding difference seems to be based purely on gender.

The girls are being under-funded and it sucks.

Is it because boys are more stupid and badly behaved, so need more help to acheieve the same results?

(Only slightly tongue-in-cheek.)

Bet the girls' schools still get better results...

I went to a selectives girls school in Kent and my brother went to the selective boys school. My mum was the 1st SEN TA at the boys' school - just because they are selective doesn't mean they don't take SEN - they will have pupils who are clever in key subjects but may need readers in exams etc. That will be why - girls and boys get the same.

PS - our girls school did always do better than the boys!

Hi OP

I hope you don't mind if I link to this from feminism, so that all of us over there can get to blow a fuse?!

I haven't read the article or looked at the figures yet but I'm sure someone will be able to, and see whether there is a good reason for this disparity or not

Have started another thread here I'm sure the people in teh feminism section will be interested!

Yes, the girls are still doing better than the boys. So what, should we underfund the girls until the boys achieve the same as them? Or should we value them as equals to the boys and provide them with the SAME FUNDING FOR THE SAME CO-HORTS despite their gender differences.

I can't believe that in this day and age it's OK for the funding OF CHILDREN FROM THE SAME CO-HORT BAND ie if you look at the ofsted report information on these schools they have the same PANDA profile and SEN profile, should receive such different levels of funding based purely on their GENDER.

Imagine if boys received a premium rate of child benefit? Everyone would be insensed and it would clearly be sexism. IMVHO this too is pure sexism. Same demographic and SEN profile for the pupils, different funding based purely on sex.

Yes a small minority of children at selective schools DO have SEN, but looking at the schools' data this does NOT account for the differences in funding at all.

Please do link to the femenism section. I am shocked and alarmed that no-one seems to care about this undermining of girls education.

Imagine in 10 years what a difference in funding this will represent for some schools.

Half a MILLION pounds per year multiplied by 10....

The boys school will receive an additional £5,000,000 in funding above that received by the girls school over a 10 year period and we all go...

'Ahh, but that's OK because the girls are still doing better than the boys and it's probably because the boys have lots of SEN ishooss'....

So the boys get to (potentially) enjoy new buildings and facilities, which the girls don't, but that's OK because the girls are still passing their exams! What value are we placing on the girls by allowing this to happen?

Imagine what the girls could experience and achieve if they were given the same level of funding - what an opportunity for our offspring!

Don't you think our daughters deserve EQUAL RIGHTS? And yes I do have sons too .

Having looked at the link, yes indeed boys selective schools are getting more than girls selective schools...but selective schools are getting way more than non selective schools.

Do children at selective schools really deserve the money more than children at a comprehensive?

No wonder parents are so keen for their children to go to selective schools.

Yes, would be interesting to know what that differential is supposed to cater towards.

Is it SEN, sporting facilities (which girls need too)?? Very odd and ... unfair.

I just took a look at the raw data for the Kent schools. I don't think it's quite as clear.

On average selective schools got £4,930; comps £4,980 and moderns $5,905.

Within selective schools the girls schools were getting £4,760, the boys £4,905 and the mixed £5,367.

The boys schools do seem to have a slightly higher number of free school meals students (2.9% v. 2.6%)

On looking further the difference for the selective schools may be accounted for by self-generated funding - Girls schools make £256/head and selective Boys make £345. Mixed schools make £808 - but this (and the higher expenditure I mention in the previous post) is accounted for by a single school - Cranbrook - which skews the figures considerably.

I looked at the figure which the LEA provide - not any additional top ups from parent generated funds etc - only what the LEA provides. This is the 'grant funding' column.

Pigtail, SOME selective schools are getting a bit more, but why are you so against selection and supporting ALL children, not just ones in comps?

Don't girls deserve the opportunity to thrive in a single sex environment, they generally tend to perform better in single sex schools. I know of a comp where I used to live that actually splits the girls and the boys so they are taught seperately because it has had such a posative impact on the girls education.

Averaging it out was an interesting idea, but in those figures, there are still some extremes.

Financial - using the grant funding figure the difference between Kent's girls selective schools and boys is £58/child (£4,561 for girls, £4,618 for boys and £4,547 for mixed).

The range is £4,170 to £5,293.

Should add one of the difficulties with the comparison and the figures given is that some of the single sex schools have mixed 6th forms.

I don't know if this is the case or not but could it be to do with larger numbers of boys opting for science subjects, which tend to require expensive equipment and labs that eg English or History A Levels do not? I'm guessing that it is probably true that more boys than girls are opting for sciences.

Purely anecdotally - Looking at private schools, like for like, boys schools tend to be slightly more expensive than girls schools.

I put this down to the need for more teachers per pupil (for discipline, class size and control).

Also boys are more likely to have a SEN and be 'less able'.

In general - lower ability, less disciplined pupils are more expensive to educate. It's basic education economics.

My private girls school was half the price of the (attached but separate) boys school. The boys there didn't have SEN, lower abilities or anything like that, the schools were highly selective and very academic. The results were not miles apart either. I can only assume that parents were prepared to pay more for boys / there was more competition for places? Market forces and all that.

No idea what all that means.

The OP has said the schools where she found this discrepancy have similar intake etc.

jack do you really think that on average boys are lower ability and less disciplined than girls?

ISNT - on average, school age, boys certainly do worse than girls, academically in the state system (and have higher SEN's).

I think the independent sector throws more resources at them (and single sex schools focus better on boys learning styles). So top boys schools perform well.

SEN wise - even top selective schools take pupils with mild dyslexia and dyspraxia - if they are bright enough.

However - I wouldn't be surprised if, statistically, bright middle class boys do better than bright working class girls at state schools.

Interesting how boys go on to get all those great jobs and earn all that money then, isn't it, what with them all being so utterly hopeless n all

Also I am highly unconvinced that the reason the boys school was twice the price of the girls school due to discipline and SEN. The children selected were hard working and intelligent and expected to get on with it (little assistance for those struggling) and I certainly didn't know anyone with dyslexia or similar. I suspect that there was a different reason for the boys school being twice the price, and it was all to do with market forces.

jack do you believe that boys should have more money spent on their education than girls, if the intake and profile of the students is the same.

The OP stated quite clearly that the schools are like for like - it's not comparing eg a boys school in a deprived area and a girls school in a wealthy area.

Someone on the other thread has just said that in their area the boys get more money than girls as a matter of course, and there are more grammar school places for boys than girls.

I think some people are going to ask their LAs what the reason is for the disparity, then we will know the reason.

Such prospect - I'm fairly sure that this funding is for statutory school and doesn't include the 6th form figures.

Isn't - I was chatting and another anomoly came up about us parenty folk - interesting with what you said about the private sector. There is a set of Grammar Schools (boys school and a girls school) where the boys school manages to apparently raise about £350 per year from most of their pupils as a parental 'contribution', but the girls school, literally next door, barely manages to raise £20 per year, in the same vein.

Now, being a bit cynical realist, I would assume that a lot of the children attending these schools would be siblings, so what does that tell you about our parental attitude towards funding our daughter

Finance - In that case the figures would suggest little difference in general in Kent (i.e. no significant, structural, government-funded difference in favour of boys). Why the two schools near you have such a disparity is curious, but probably not down to a formula the funders' are using that gives girls less.

I think the voluntary contribution thing is quite telling about general attitudes. I remember quite clearly from uni meeting quite a lot of women who had gone to their local grammar but whose brothers had been sent to private schools. I never met a woman who had been privately educated but whose brother had gone to a state school (that I know of).

Well Financia, that is certainly shocking. I think we need to find the explanation. Is it because boys schools are in older uninsulated buildings and so spend more on heating? Is it because teachers in the boys school get better salaries?

In any case, glad that the girls are still getting the better results, ha!