As it says.
i am increasingly puzzled by the differences between state primary schools - not just the difference between, those, say, in the richer leafier suburbs of London and those in the inner city, but also between two schools within a mile of each other in the same city.
What accounts for these difference?
For example:
- Why do some primary schools have proper specialised language teaching and others have someone who does not even have a GCSE/ability to do a French accent (ie one set of kids will actually have a bash at learning french, the others might get an idea that there are other languages out there, but little more).
- Why do some schools provide swimming for kids either every week throughout primary school (and even have their own pool) while others have it once a term throughout school ...and yet others only two terms out of the kids entire time in primary. Can the requirement to provide swimming really be satisfied by such meagre provision.
- Why do some schools near us provide subsidised or free individual or very small group instrument lessons from Y3 up - and others don't.
- Why do some schools have on sight freshly cooked food, and others have plastic nuked muck sent in.
- Why do some schools have building that are allowed to stay in very poor condition, while others seem to have the funding to build a specialised music or art wing.
- Why do some schools have great playgrounds, and others have horrible playgrounds with no real facilities (and the only way to improve is to somehow lobby for funds from parents).
-Why do some (most in our area) have special extra activities for kids who are ahead of the class average (even if it's only half an hour a week discussing books with another teacher) while others don't make any extra provision at all.
- Why do some schools have full time TA's in each class, while others only have a TA a few hours a day in each class?
- Why do some schools have links with different creative institutions, and others don't.
Possible answers:
- PTA involvement. However, while it's true that PTAs can raise varying degrees of money depending on the richness of the area - this can't account for ALL the differences in money, available, surely?
- Head. I realise that a head can influence how money is spent, but can they have such a major difference in actual provision of services?
- Parental pressure?
- Running costs (but surely the budget depends partly on, say, the number of children and the type of building in which it is housed).
I am just baffled by the differences. And it's not even the difference between a good or outstanding school and a failing one. A school can be outstanding or good and have none of these extra provisions, or none delivered in a really meaningful way.
Explanations really gratefully received.