With Oxbridge taking less and less private school students, is it still worth it??

[SillySmart]

stats shows that the number of private educated students Oxbridge enrolled has dropped 1/3 in the past 5 years. Any thoughts?

@user149799568

Yes I do realise it. Still I don't see the reason why at a personal level I would send my son to a school below national average. I have stated it in the response to another post of somebody criticising that parents move their houses to live near better school. I would do exactly the same.

As a matter of fact I live in the London Borough with several great comprehensive schools with 5+ at GCSE above 80 perc of students and 7+ above 50 or 60 percent. The closest school is though below average. Obviously I have not even included this school in our choices.

Can you point us to this research? The studies that I have seen indicate that parents are the most important factor in predicting a student's results, more important than the teachers that a student has. I do agree that class size is well down the list.

Grammar schools are receiving less money per pupil. All comprehensive schools are receiving the exact same amount per pupil nation wide.It is given per pupil's head If a school gets more money because of refurbishment etc is a separate matter. FSM is hardly relevant because this is only Meal funding and it is not something static e.g. one month a single mum lost a job and her kid got on FSM and next month she found a job so her daughter will not be on FSM from the next term. Hence, I don't understand the concept of " how many kids are on free meals". This is never a stable number and is changing term by term. Also, this is granted and distributed by Councils so this is not related to school budgeting received from gov. For that matter the entire London kid's population have free meals this year- major Khan's decision. The relation between FSM and school performance is not accurate.e.g. there is this new school ( Reach Hanworth) created in the neighboring borough which is a twin school to another one that has great results ( Feltham Reach). New schook gives priority to FSM kids. And since the headmistress and teachers are shared and just new hired it will be also way above average.

The school receives additional money for EHCP kids and SEN provision may differ.

Yes cohort and parental input is a huge factor

You get better results out of lower funding when you select by entry or via house price

Lower funded in the same area are only grammar schools. Because basing on the fact that they are cheaper to run they managed to survive. Many goverments and groups wanted/ still want to cancel existence of grammar schools. But they are not turned to comprehensives at a broad scale because they receive less funding per pupil. All other schools are getting £7,690. Then with the other expenses NFF, national funding formula looks at the location of school ( salaries, wages, costs etc). Free meals are not a static number hence the funding is allocated via council as the number changes.

UCAS looks at where you did your gcses.....

You're right. A mother's level of education is the best predictor of how a DC will achieve; the aspects I listed are the biggest outside influences on that DC, if that makes sense. There's an element of nature v nurture in that assessment, though of course a mother usually has a significant influence on the nurture side too!

As with lots of educational issues, it's much more nuanced than my earlier post implies, and there are lots of caveats because it's often hard with multi-factorial studies to pin down precisely which factor is causing which effect. For example, teachers may prefer to work with smaller classes (for a variety of reasons) and that preference could, potentially, become a self-fulfilling truth… Certainly teacher retention appears to go up when they are teaching smaller classes - it could be one reason private schools typically have higher retention rates.

For those who are interested in this, PISA has done a lot of research into it. Educationalist Dylan Williams has also written extensively about it. A government study is here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/183364/DFE-RR169.pdf
The whole report is worth a read but if you just want a spot check, class size is summarised on Page 5, and there are links there to other studies.

I should point out that I no longer work in educational research and haven't for some years, so it may well be that some of my information is out of date. Apologies if so.

My bad. I knew that FSM doesn't affect school funding (besides the meals, of course), but I couldn't edit my post. I meant to write that the better performing schools probably have fewer SEN students and, therefore, less funding. However, while there has been much research demonstrating that the best performing state schools (grammar or comprehensive) have much lower than average percentages of FSM students, has there been any research indicating that they have lower than average percentages of SEN students? I sort of expect so, but measuring performance on Progress 8 rather than Attainment 8, I don't think that I've actually seen anything about this.

FSM is an actual fact. Somebody actually claimed it and should claim it, because if you were ever entitled to it in the last 6 years, it may help with all sorts of uni admissions.

SEN is not always diagnosed, especially at the higher functioning levels. Look at the Cambridge SEN statistics, they suggest very low SEN. Same applies to many grammars when in actual fact there are plenty of neurodivergent but high functioning types in these settings. It often only comes out when you have autistic burnout/severe mental health issues.

knew that FSM doesn't affect school funding (besides the meals, of course)

The money allocated for meals is not simply provided to the school as a lump sum for the entire year as part of the school budget. Eligibility is assessed by the council based on a parental application. Individuals can apply at any point during the school year, and if the application is successful, FSM fund is sent to the school for the respective pupil at any time during the year. Additionally, the provision is discontinued if a parent is no longer eligible.

I meant to write that the better performing schools probably have fewer SEN students

not really. It is not that straightforward and even opposite.
Children with EHCP are selecting the comprehensive school they wish to attend, and they are given priority even if they reside outside the catchment area. This implies that their parents opt for the best schools with the most favorable outcomes. In most cases, obtaining an EHCP requires being at least two years behind the educational program, with a focus primarily on education when granting EHCP. Exceptions include cases such as mobility issues where the child requires assistance or situations where the child is academically proficient but needs support due to behavioral challenges, such as aggression associated with conditions like ASD.
There are more EHCP pupils in the best state non-selective schools than in those with poor performance. Recently, I assisted a mother in applying for an EHCP for her daughter who underwent an eye operation, resulting in a delay of over two years. Despite the delay, the girl is intelligent but significantly lags in mathematics. Thanks to EHCP she will get to best best-performing school in her area as she will surpass anybody on the waiting list. EHCP just needs to justify why this and not another school and if the explanation is plausible they are accepted. Look at the criteria of application of any comprehensive. Nearly all schools put kids with EHCP and "looked after kids" on the top on the list.
Another factor influencing EHCP distribution is the type of school. Some comprehensive schools have extensive SEN departments, accommodating a greater number of SEN and EHCP students. Remarkably, these schools maintain an Outstanding status and perform well academically. For instance, my son, who does not have an EHCP and excels in mathematics and English, is in Year 6 at such a primary school. In his class, there are three children with an assistant (EHCP), and several others are on the SEN register for conditions like ADHD and ASD. Despite this, the school achieves above-average SAT results.

SEN is not always diagnosed, especially at the higher functioning levels.

of course but we are talking here about SEN in relation to funding. The goverment takes into consideration the fact that diagnosis takes ages and often is inaccurate. Therefore, the schools are not only getting funds for EHCP kids and those on SEN register ( Diagnosed) but also they get lump sum for kids with so called SEN monitoring. SEN monitoring fund amount is granted to school basing on past year reports and predicted needs. It is for kids that are observed by SEN and school and those who are in application process for e.g. EHCP and so on.
In practice... it is always very tight money and not enough.

?! There are some really inaccurate comments on this thread. FSM children are very relevant, because they don’t just get free school meals, the schools they are at get pupil premium funding for them - for six years, not just while they are definitely eligible FSM (unless they move schools, of course, as the money moves with them, because it is for the specific child’s benefit, even though the money spent often indirectly benefits more children than that). This is because everyone knows poverty has long lasting effects. That’s why those children are sometimes called, “Ever 6.” Looked after children, previously looked after children, and service family children also get pupil premium funding.

School funding is established at the school census, which takes place on one specific day nationally each term, with different funding stream amounts established on different census dates - so, funding for the year is not so much per pupil, as per pupil on the school’s roll on a specific date, depending on the characteristics of the pupils being looked at at that particular census. Eg The same applies to things like universal infant free school meals funding (not the same thing as FSM, as UIFSM is for all children in Early Years and KS1) - how many children in the school are taking that up on a specific census date? Frankly, it’s all ridiculously silly and complicated, with a national funding formula (calculating basic per pupil funding, additional needs funding, school-led funding, geographic funding and protection funding…), Local Authorities’ own funding formulae, and different academy trusts’ (who get their money direct from the DfE, not via a Local Authority) all divvying the funding share differently and keeping their own slice of the pie for the services they provide, before it ends up in actual schools.

The national funding formula is supposed to take into account different demographics in different parts of the country, but has always been contentious, because it led to historic unfairness, with some Local Authority areas being woefully underfunded compared to others, and London getting far more than its fair share of funding - funny how its schools ended up outperforming the rest of the country after that, isn’t it, after years of London having dreadful state school performance? 🧐And they say it’s nothing to do with money and just that London children have more industrious parents 😂. The national funding formula was amended not so very many years ago to try to do something to tackle this, but it is still demonstrably unfair for some schools and areas.

As for planning for changes in pupil numbers - some idiot governments seemed to think it was a good idea to remove an awful lot of power and control away from Local Authorities who used to have a better handle on what was going on in their schools, because they were all Local Authority schools. Now we have a mess, so I’m really not surprised planning is piss poor. To make things even more complicated, a Local Authority school’s financial year runs from April to March, which is really very silly from an individual school’s point of view, given the way a school year runs. Academy schools’ financial years run from September to August.

I can’t help thinking schools being political footballs isn’t helping anyone.

FSM children are very relevant, because they don’t just get free school meals, the schools they are at get pupil premium funding for them

FSM is processed by the local council and it is checked every March. If a parent is not receiving e.g. Universal Credit or...Disability allowance ( well less likely to be withdrawn from the last one) then a child is not receiving free meals anymore. I am not sure what would be the purpose of the additional funds ? People premium is for looked after children and those on FSM for last 6 years. FSM ever that is >6 years is not the same as temporary FSM that are for a year or so on FSM
The holiday food vouchers are distributed by the council and not the school as well as all free holiday clubs are organised at a council level and offered to all kids. What exactly is the pupil premium funding that school receives?
Just because a child is on FSM doesn't mean is delayed in education and need any special support.

@RedFluffyPanda this is simply incorrect. FSM (in the form of pupil premium finding) can be applied for at any time, and lasts for 6 years. The school gets a few thousand pounds of extra funding per child and the child gets free meals. The mayor funded universal free meals in London are a completely different source of funding. To qualify for PP/FSM family income has to be very low indeed and there is a very strong proven link between this level of income and lower educational outcomes, hence the additional funding.

There is no such thing as temporary FSM, it’s a part of PP. The HAF and holiday food vouchers are given to PP children and other children at the discretion of the school

This extra funding isn’t spent on the individual PP pupils as such (although it can be spent to subsidise trips, etc) but schools need to be able to prove that it improves educational outcomes for the PP group as a whole

The council decides who gets it and it is distributed by council.

The council doesn't decide who gets FSM. There are national eligibility criteria. If you meet them, and you apply, then you receive FSM.

councils administer the process, using nationally set criteria. But once eligible, a child remains entitled to PP funding (and FSM) for 6 years - it can’t just be taken away through a temporary uplifting of circumstance. It is distributed as part of the local authority funding to maintain schools.

Not true. They did not survive because they are cheaper to run. Some Local Education Authorities simply refused to convert their grammar schools to comprehensives in the 60s and 70s (eg Kent was the biggest one). Schools that never converted are now protected but no new grammar schools are now permitted to be created anywhere in the country. This has nothing to do with running costs, it was then and is now, politics. It’s funding formulae that make grammar schools cheaper to fund, because of their demographics - they are expected to be able to run on less money. Espensive to educate children and poverty stricken areas do not go away with the existence of state grammar schools. Grammar schools also argue they are underfunded, anyway - back to the unfairness of funding formulae.

Grammar schools can still open “annexes”. Two recent ones opened in Sevenoaks, an affluent commuter town in the South East.

There are some state academies there doing well too. It is good to give people choice of schooling. That is why London is now successful. Where I live if you go to the local train station you will see numerous secondary school uniforms and at all the local bus stops. Many people get to actually choose what is best for their DC.

London’s schools are now successful because disproportionately vast amounts of money were spent on them; because choice is actually possible for some in densely populated areas (that have had vast amounts of money spent on their public transport systems); because London has been systematically squeezing out to the provinces families from educationally lower performing demographics by pricing them out of private housing and by solving its social housing crisis by housing its social housing tenants elsewhere in the country, as far away from London as it can get away with. Choice is not so easy in less densely populated areas with poor public transport and other infrastructure, which have comparatively little spent on them. Politicians do like to gloss over the fact that real choice is a lie for most people.

I was about 10 when Newcastle where I am from (and where I went to private school from age 4) abolished the 11 plus. There have been no grammars in Newcastle since then. London has more people and more choice of schools.

But only 16 out of UK's 163 grammar schools are located in Greater London. (Plus 63 in NIrl). If we look at the density population there are very few in London and that is why are super selective. These schools in London may not be that great at all teaching-wise and results are simply the result of selection of top performers.

Hear, hear!

A significant amount of research by respected academics has been done on the success of London schools and it is not down to funding alone. Far from it and the most significant bit is that poorer deprived children, of which there are many, do surprisingly well. My personal take on this is that it is some sort of ideology like a “London dream” akin to the American dream everyone knows about. It is a remnant of the Blairite years and a significant success story.

Parents from all walks of life in London believe their children can do well and are willing to push them and do whatever it takes to make sure they do well. That aspiration is at the heart of everything.