Schools with disadvantaged intakes less likely to be outstanding as harder to run

[noblegiraffe]

Schools with disadvantaged intakes are less likely to be outstanding as they are harder to run, thus Ofsted grades should not be used as a judgement of headteacher effectiveness.

SAYS THE INCOMING CHIEF OF OFSTED

www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/ofsteds-next-chief-watchdogs-overall-verdicts-schools-not-fair-way

Along with Sean Harford's letter confirming that multiple marking in various colours is bollocks and Ofsted don't want to see it, things look like they might be looking up, Ofstedwise?

A good argument for schools with lots of disadvantaged pupils to get more funding I would think. I don't work in a school, but I'd think schools need more staff and resources if they are having to deal with lots of social problems as well as get good results.

Good to know ofsted may finally acknowledge the differences.

Having done my first round of secondary visits in sept / oct it was painfully clear the differences between schools with a disadvantaged intake and those with more comfortable and supported pupils.

A good argument for schools with lots of disadvantaged pupils to get more funding I would think

They do. Every LA must include a factor for deprivation in their schools funding formula. This is in addition to the pupil premium, which is also targeted at disadvantaged pupils. Whether such schools receive enough funding is a matter of opinion but they receive more funding per pupil than other schools in their area.

Every LA must include a factor for deprivation in their schools funding formula

What about when the schools are academies and their funding does not go anywhere near the LA?

Academies funding is calculated in much the same way, just comes direct from the EFA not through the LA. The EFA use the relevant local authority formula to calculate both mainstream funding (which includes deprivation funding) and pupil-led (numbers) funding for those who attract high-needs funding.

The only difference is that maintained schools run on the academic year whilst academies run on the financial year.

Isn't pupil premium dependent on the parents claiming free school meals, which some won't because of perceived stigma?

What about when the schools are academies and their funding does not go anywhere near the LA

As PatriciaHolm says, their funding is still determined using the LA's funding formula, although they also get an Education Services Grant to pay for those services provided by the LA for maintained schools.

Isn't pupil premium dependent on the parents claiming free school meals, which some won't because of perceived stigma

It is dependent on the child qualifying for free school meals at any point within the previous 6 years regardless of whether or not the parents claim them. It does depend on parents who are not claiming FSM telling schools that their child is eligible for pupil premium.

It is also available for children who have been looked after by a local authority for more than one day.

They do. Every LA must include a factor for deprivation in their schools funding formula

I was thinking of when they bring in the new fairer funding formula thing i read about on here. Are they not planning on cutting funding to schools that currently get higher funding due to higher numbers of disadvantaged students or have i misunderstood?

Are they not planning on cutting funding to schools that currently get higher funding due to higher numbers of disadvantaged students

No they are not. They are actually working on identifying those LAs that are the least fairly funded for high needs pupils so that they can receive additional funding. Some LAs may see their funding rise at lower rates if the new funding formula shows that they are currently receiving too much funding but no-one will see their funding reduced in cash terms. Deprivation will continue to be a factor in determining school funding.

This is so, so true. 100 per cent true. Look at the turnaround in Tower Hamlets when they got more funding.

Thanks prh. That's good news. I must have misunderstood.
Some LAs may see their funding rise at lower rates if the new funding formula shows that they are currently receiving too much funding but no-one will see their funding reduced in cash terms.
There was a website on the thread that said the equivalent of three teachers worth of funding would be lost from dd's school. Is that because their funding will rise at a rate not high enough to continue funding them?

Several possibilities here.

It could be that their funding is not increasing enough to fund these teachers, as you say.

Although the LA receives at least as much cash as last year they may have altered their funding formula to allocate the cash between schools differently. That could lead to a school losing up to 1.5% of its funding per pupil. If that is the case some other schools within the LA will see an increase in their funding per pupil.

Funding is largely based on pupil numbers. If the number of pupils on the roll has fallen that will result in reduced funding for the school.

There may be other explanations. Those are the ones that spring to mind.

Funding aside - how do these schools incentivise talented teachers to opt to teach in more difficult positions?