Stories + Views
Free School to Exclude Poorer Children Nearby
This article is reproduced with permission from the No to Kings School, Hove web site. It describes how the decision of the school to base its catchment area on its original site (2.5 miles from the current one) excludes the local poorer community:
At last night’s King’s School prospective parent evening at Aldrington School, the King’s team admitted that the chances of getting their preferred site of King Alfred were “very low”. Despite this, the school will still use King Alfred as the location for their catchment area. Up to fifty percent of places at King’s School will be open to children from families of no faith or other faith. These will be offered in order of distance from the school. The school’s prospectus states:
“…if the school becomes oversubscribed, which is likely, half of the available places will be offered in order of distance from the school (in the first year, we will use our preferred site, the King Alfred, as our reference point for this) and the remaining half will be offered using a church reference.”
We think it is very cynical to use the more affluent King Alfred catchment, rather than their likely actual location. Brighton and Hove Council have offered the school Portslade Sixth Form Site – about two and a half miles from King Alfred. The families that live close to King Alfred are unquestionably more affluent than those who live in Portslade.
So how does this exclude poorer children? We know there are no shortage of parents prepared to feign a faith to get their children into what they perceive to be a better school. Typically these parents are from the so-called sharp-elbowed middle class. King’s School will also prioritise those from more affluent homes for their non-faith intake. Combine these two ways of prioritising the majority of their pupils and King’s School will effectively have a gated community of non-diverse, middle class children to teach. It’s a scandalous abuse of public funds – and completely at odds with the stated intent of Free Schools to help improve education in deprived areas.
We’ve noticed a question on the King’s School Facebook page from a Portslade-based parent querying the use of King Alfred as the point to measure distance. It’s five days old and still remains unanswered. Not surprising King’s School might not want to draw attention to this particular sleight of hand.
We should point out that King’s School may yet be located at King Alfred, and there is the possibility of their finding their own premises much closer to King Alfred than the Portslade Sixth Form Site, however for now it feels very cynical and self-serving.
Comments, replies and queries
Reply
The King’s School, Hove, is being partnered by the Russell Education Trust (RET) which is sponsored by Education London (EL), a private limited company.
RET partnered the Bristol Free School which, according to Wikipedia (admittedly not the most reliable of sources) countered claims that it was exclusively for the middle-classes by allocating 20% of its places to pupils in less advantaged parts of Bristol. Although it had spaces for 150 Year 7 pupils, its first intake in 2011 was only 80. RET also partnered the Becket Keys C of E Free School, which has a head with no experience of secondary education, was opposed by local head teachers and opened in September 2012 in an area where the number of secondary school pupils is declining.
http://www.russelleducationtrust.org.uk/freeschools.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Free_School
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/09/controversy-surrounds-new-free-schools/
Depressingly typical of the marketing execs in the Alpha parent BFS founders to use wikipedia to distort their manipulation of the admissions area as some “philanthropic inclusive” gesture.
Just to clarify :the Bristol Free school was located adjacent to a “less advantaged area”. against the wishes of the founding middle class parents who had originally anticipated a site within their more affluent area to the south-west ( this site fell through much to their dismay) .
The admissions area comprises mainly the further away affluent area and they allow only 20% of pupils to come from the area immediately surrounding the school.
It would seem this 20% is still too high for the affluent parents who have failed to take up the places they must have previously registered an interest in.
The admissions map showing how the area is distorted to suit the founders can be found here http://www.bristolfreeschool.org.uk/admissionscriteria.php
The King Alfred’s {site} is in Central South Hove, which is the least served area in the city in terms of secondary schools. Hove is also one of the areas which will face a shortage of school places in the near future.
http://www.kingsschoolhove.org.uk/site.php
and…..
We met early on with the schools planning officers at Brighton and Hove Council who told us that BN3 had the highest educational need in the city. In the imminent future, there will be not enough secondary school places for children in BN3. City wide, we have a shortage of places as of 2014.
http://www.kingsschoolhove.org.uk/localneed.php
Why is a free school better than the other options Ricky?
Or are other options not allowed to be explored because a free school will be better than them because it is a free school. And free schools are better because they’re free schools….
What other options?
The free school is approved, ready to go and can open in September 2013.
It would take ages for the LA to find an academy chain willing,then formally commission a school and then build it. And why bother, if there’s a free school on hand?
You ask if the free school is, anyway, a better option.
Yes.
An LA commissioned academy would be the expression of what the council and the academy chain between them want.
The free school is an expression of what parents want.
Far healthier, in my view.
So are you saying some parents here are expressing a wish for a school that excludes poorer children? Doesn’t this prove that the Free School programme was always designed to pander to the advantaged and further exclude the disadvantaged? Data on Free Schools already analysed bear this out. It seems the government was concealing the truth, as they concealed so much about their real intentions when it comes to the economy, the NHS, welfare and even their relationship with Murdoch and his companies.
There is no evidence that the school is going to “exclude poorer children”.
When the parents signed-up to support the school, no particular site or catchment was established, so the idea that these were parents intending to exclude the poor is another one of your nutty fruitcake conspiracy theories.
A free school is the expression of what a small group of parents believe they WANT.
An LA commissioned academy would be the expression of what the democratically elected council (as the statutory commissioner of provision) has determined through careful analysis and consultation with all stakeholders in the the local community is NEEDED.
Far more democratic, strategic, and better value for money in my view.
The evidence is there, so no conspiracy theory. The school is now planned to be set up in a more affluent area and is thus excluding the children from the poorer area. When the free school policy was announced, one of the main arguments was that they would serve the underpriveleged. This is another example, to add to the many, that Free Schools are in fact serving the already advantaged and sharp elbowed. The parents behind Free Schools tend to be a minority of the most articulate, able and resourceful and push for the type of school they want. Hardly democratic and inclusive of the whole community, which is better represented via open and transparent consultation led by local government.
No, Allan, you have once again misunderstood the facts and the issue.
Let’s run through it again to make it clear:
1. When the school applied to DfE for approval, its preferred site was the King Alfred site. This is in the area identified by the council as having greatest need. The chances are, therefore, that many or most of the parents who signed up for the school live in that area. It was their enthusiasm for the school that got it through the application process.
2. Since then, the local council has offered another site some distance away. The school still prefers its original site, but may have to make do with the one the council is offering.
What is the school to do about all those parents who signed up for it originally? Is it going to throw away all their pledges and start signing up new parents closer to the new site? Or, will it honour its commitment to the first lot by leaving the distance criteria as they were when these parents gave their support to the school?
It’s a no-brainer really.
In fact, these distance criteria will only come into effect if the school is oversubscribed. That seems unlikely in its first year.
I’ve understood perfectly Ricky.
The chaos that this Free School proposal has created shows precisely why tax payer funded schools should not be left in the hands of a minority of parents ill equipped and lacking in real power to coherently and succesfully found a new school that can serve the local community it is supposed to serve. This where Free Market “enterprise” goes wrong when it gets into the hands of a few parents. Even when their motives just might be for the collective good, as opposed to advantaging the cluster of more affluent parents in a poorer neighbourhood, the fact that sites are dictated not by actual location where need is greatest but by what is available miles way from the original location shows just how nonsensical the Free School project is. THey all somehow end up favouring the more affluent. And this brings into question Gove’s motives for this in the first place. Despite Gove’s pledge at the beginning, Free Schools don’t really serve the poor.
A free school is the expression of what a small group of parents believe they WANT.
If that “small group” is big enough to fill a cohort (two successive cohorts under the present rules), then they should get what they want.
You say “believe they want” as if these poor deluded folk were suffering from some sort of false-consciousness. Typical Marxist claptrap.
There are many “small groups” big enough to fill a cohort in a brand new maintained school. How come they don’t get what they want? I fail to see how Sarah’s comment is Marxist. Are you a fascist then?
The proposed site of the free school is not in BN3 but BN4.
The postcode of the proposed (and preferred) site is BN3 2WW.
The BN4 site is one the council is offering.
There are already three secondary schools in BN3 according to the Council although one selects by faith:
http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=c1171074
There is one secondary school in BN4.
According to the New Schools Network, Brighton and Hove has an expected shortfall of secondary places in 2014/15 of 191. Providing a new 875 place secondary school would, therefore, result in an oversupply.
http://newschoolsnetwork.org/sites/default/files/Where%20we%20need%20Secondary%20Schools%20-%20June%202012.pdf
Janet,
All 875 don’t arrive at once. A new school will typically admit 120 to 150 in Y7 each year.
So what’s the shortfall of places in year 7? Anybody got a link to the data?
You’re welcome to answer my other question too Ricky….
According to the New Schools Network, their data (culled from the DfE) “shows the 20 local authorities which are projected to have the greatest deficit of mainstream secondary school places by 2014/15.” Brighton is 20th on the list behind Rutland.
The NSN doesn’t make it clear that these are Y7 places or places in the entire 11-16 phase of secondary school. Perhaps you could answer Rebecca’s question and find this out.
Janet, I’m assuming they are Y7 places, but will look into it further if I have time.
My assumption is based on the remarkable level of political agreement reported locally.
The provision of a new secondary school for Brighton & Hove was a pledge in Caroline Lucas’s Green Party election campaign.
Greens have spent more than four years campaigning for new secondary education provision In the city. Caroline as the local MP is determined that long term barriers to central Brighton’s access to school places is resolved. Green councillors have……called for a new secondary school in the city…
http://www.carolinelucas.com/get-involved/campaigns/new-school.html
I doubt if the Greens would want the carbon footprint of a school that wasn’t needed.
Labour councillor Gill Mitchell has said:
“What are needed are two new secondary schools for the city.”
(The Argus, 12/3/12)
and Conservative councillor Andrew Wealls agreed:
“It is well known that the city needs two more secondary schools by the second half of this decade.” (Argus 14/7/12)
I don’t understand the objection to a school that is created to serve an intended area, but which cannot be situated in that area and is then built at a distance which is commutable, and then maintains an admissions policy to take children from the intended area.
The faith issue is another matter.
If a lot of poor children from Portslade want to go this new school and it is oversubscribed why not just allow the free school to expand?
What if it can’t expand? It’s difficult enough for Free School proposers to get an original site and some buildings to begin with, never mind one that allows for “expansion”. If all existing schools had the capacity to “expand”, there might be less urgency about schools places, Ben. You really do live in a bizarre Utopian Free Market Neverland.
Or they could just open another new free school with the same or similar concept of operation, which could be organised by the King’s School or someone else
Is this a summary of the situation?
Brighton needed a new school.
They are are using the free schools route because that’s the way to get it done. Had the LA route been the way to get it done they would have used that.
It’s going to be a middle class school because it’s the middle class parents who got organised to get it going. Which is annoying because Gove said that wouldn’t be the case.
Is there anything else I need to know?
It’s going to be a middle class school because it’s the middle class parents who got organised to get it going.
Are they all middle-class? How do you know?
I suppose that now the middle class is the largest class and even John Prescott sees himself as middle class, the chances are that most parents in most schools are middle class.
As for the three women who were the prime movers of this school: one used to be a teacher; another set up a benefits advice centre; and the third works for a disability charity. If they are middle class, they don’t seem to be particularly sharp-elbowed.
I didn’t say they were all middle class. I’m referring in brief to it being linked to an affluent catchment area and it being a faith school.
I also didn’t use the phrase sharp-elbowed.
I’m referring in brief to it being linked to an affluent catchment area
What do you mean by ‘affluent’?
It’s in the poorest third of the indices of deprivation.
Perhaps not. But efforts in setting up a new school in areas of greatest need is best initiated by local government with adequate funding from central government. That is most democratic thing to do but democracy is being eroded by this government.
Re the need for extra secondary places in Brighton and Hove:
1 The New Schools Network (using DfE figures) says there will be a shortfall of 191 places in 2014/15
2 Local MP, Caroline Lucas, wrote that Greens had “Called for a new secondary school in the city or a satellite annex to an existing school.” (link provided by Ricky who missed out the bit about “satellite annex” in his selective quote above).
3 Two quotes by Ricky (unlinked) show Labour and Conservative councillors lobbying for two new secondary schools.
So we can choose between calls for 191 places or one new secondary school or two new secondary schools.
If there is a need for a new secondary school (and that’s not clear from the evidence above – the MP thinks a satellite to an existing school would suffice), then it’s not best provided by a school which would select half of its pupils using a faith criteria and in a part of the city which, if the proposers have their way, would be in an area (BN3) where there are already three secondary schools.
http://newschoolsnetwork.org/sites/default/files/Where%20we%20need%20Secondary%20Schools%20-%20June%202012.pdf
http://www.carolinelucas.com/get-involved/campaigns/new-school.html
Janet
if the proposers have their way, would be in an area (BN3) where there are already three secondary schools.
Haven’t we already established that the council identified BN3 as the area with the greatest need?
If there is a need for a new secondary school….. then it’s not best provided by a school which would select half of its pupils using a faith criteria
Why not? If there are 9 CofE primaries but no CofE secondary, what’s wrong with having a CofE free school?
The Greens, the Labour Party and the Tories, plus local parents all seem to want a new school.
The council is co-operating and even offering land…….
It’s only you lot (LSN usual suspects) who appear to want to deny the community their new school.
At the moment, the “community” is defined by the small group steering a Free School. The community is surely better and more transparently represented by the local authority undertaking a consultation? Since Gove has issued what you would no doubt call a diktat by only allowing new schools to be Academies or Free Schools, he has effectively and undemocratically bypassed the mechanismn of local government and denied the voices and wishes of a significant numnber of tax payers who actually want an LA maintained school above schools which are under the thumb of central government. This situation in Hove once again shines a very unflattering light on the chaos caused by the Free School movement and those involved in it, especially those who see a free market, free “choice” opportunity in the state school sector. It doesn’t work for the collective good. And that’s not a Marxist statement, any more than your pronouncements might be construed as vox box-ing for the Oligarchs. The “usual suspects” here are advocating for equal access to great education for everyone; we are not advocating – and have never advocated – dumbing down, or Racing to the Bottom, we are not the Enemies of Promise but wish to have every young child and young person being promised a good start in life. Gove says he wants to improve attainment, so why does he implement policies which exclude more children from attaining?
You appear very rattled lately, Ricky, in much the same way as Cameron has been going red-faced, on the defensive and out of control lately.
Perhaps it would be better to rely on what Brighton Council actually says rather than what the proposed free school’s website says it said.
Brighton Council’s consultation on school provision said: “there is sufficient capacity in secondary schools until September 2014 when there will start to be a shortage of 17 places (2FE) in Year 7. Proposals for Dorothy Stringer and Cardinal Newman to expand by one form of entry each would resolve this deficit.”
To accommodate extra numbers after 2014 the Council is considering the following options:
1 developing the two Hove Park school sites as separate schools federated under one head/governing body;
2 refurbishing Blatchington Mill;
3 developing a new site;
4 establishing a “virtual” secondary school.
In addition, a University Technology College (UTC) had been suggested but the Council was concerned that this would recruit from a wide area and not benefit many Brighton pupils.
The council spoke of the uncertainty caused by not knowing if proposed free schools would actually open or not.
If numbers were to continue to increase then the Council says it would need to expand existing secondary schools and/or build new secondary schools. These new schools could be in a refurbished vacant Council building or converted office block, a new-build secondary school (site unknown) or a free school.
Another local action group recommends that the extra provision would be better provided by the Council’s plans than by the establishment of the King’s School, Hove. This group is concerned that the proposed free school would not be for the locals but is “intended primarily for the existing nine CofE primary schools across the city”:
http://lougreenbaum.moonfruit.com/#/do-we-need-it/4560226856
Council consultation downloadable from: http://consult.brighton-hove.gov.uk/portal/bhcc/schools/draft_brighton__hove_school_organisation_plan_2012-2016?pointId=1328027104353
This isn’t so much “what the council says” as what the council said before the free school had even applied to the DfE, let alone been approved.
All rather out of date.
But the local authority has had years to open a new school, but hasn’t done so. (There are always many claims on an LA’s time and money).
That’s why the community group behind the free school acted.
This is democracy from the bottom up.
If the present government funded schools properly, rather than slash 60% off its capital budget, and had a coherent and long-term vision to improve schools in all local authorities, then this and other LAs would have sufficient resources to open new schools in areas that most needed them. Under Chairman Gove, LAs have seen their budgets amputated, been demonized and now their services to education neutered. He has falsely tarred all LAs with the brush of incompetence and breaking our education system in order that he could seize absolute control of schools under the guise of empowering communities, parents and teachers when the reality is that, once these schools are established, parents are excluded from influencing the governance of these new schools because the middle tier of local stewardship has been taken away.
This is not a “community group” because it has not been elected by the local community via democratic nor transparent means. And its hands, it has caused a rift in the community as well as uncertainty and chaos. Just like the coalition’s economic, health and welfare policies in fact. Would Andrew Mitchell see Free School proposers as being democracy in action but the rest of us who support equality as “plebs” who ought to “know our place”?
Ricky – see my post above which summarises what the Council is considering. You’ll note that it is not until 2014 that extra secondary places are needed so there was no need for the LA to “open a new school”. The Council also makes it clear that the initial shortfall in 2014 can be accommodated by two schools expanding by one form entry each.
Janet
B&H’s primary intakes are increasing by 2 FE per year. It makes perfect sense to open one new school next year and to start plans for another one.
Ricky – read the consultation document by Brighton Council. It gives projected pupil numbers and sets out how it plans to deal with them. In the first instance it calculated that the 2014 shortfall could be met by expanding two schools by one form entry as I said above. The Council then laid out its strategies for meeting future shortfalls.
“It makes perfect sense” to follow the Council’s ideas. It does not make “perfect sense” to open a new school in 2014 when there is only need for two extra forms. This allows time for a more considered approach for any extra provision which doesn’t rely on an interest group pushing forward their idea of what is needed.
Janet
The free school will indeed be “free” – in the sense that it will not cost the council a penny.
They should like that.
I really hate all this political posturing on both sides.
You might hate it Rebecca but when politics define policies, its inevitable. Surely politics are more relevant to these debates than Coronation Street?
You can always talk about reality.
Thanks Janet
We have been talking about the reality of the coalition government’s effects on schools, Rebecca. It is unavoidably political.
We are talking about Brighton in particular. The conversation could be focused on reality. Political point scoring is clearly going to get you nowhere and will just alienate new readers to the site who might otherwise contribute.
You’re sitting in a glass house throwing stones, Rebecca. I’m not going to get drawn into one of your protracted asides which go nowhere and make for uncomfortable reading as well as go completely off post. I’m very sorry indeed to be so blunt as I think we are broadly in support of the same things but I think you are both naive and misguided to divorce your interpretation of reality from policies and politics. Let’s leave it at that.
I like to explore real situations to better understand the perspectives different people have and build relationships.
Go and interview parents and children from WLFS then and stick it on youtube
Ricky – you say ‘If that “small group” is big enough to fill a cohort (two successive cohorts under the present rules), then they should get what they want.’
It’s hardly Marxist to expect that taxpayer’s money is spent on addressing need rather than want and that the priority should be giving capital to those authorities with enormous basic need issues rather than allowing new schools to be established in places where there is no demographic demand. And the evidence is that many of these free schools are under subscribed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19909369
At least a quarter of the new ones are significantly (ie up to a half) unsubscribed. And yet the DfE says ‘”We have the view that even in area where there’s a surplus of places we still think parents should have the opportunity of a choice of a different kind of school ‘
It’s not a credible policy.
Thank you, sarah, for your calm critique. The DfE seems to be making things up as it goes along – the reasons for setting up free schools keep changing as I mentioned on this thread below. And no-one has yet explained what will happen when free schools established in areas where there is no demographic need result in one, or more, schools becoming unviable. Which school would close? The LA can only close its own schools so what would be the reaction of parents if a good, popular LA school has to shut because it’s the only one that the LA has the power to close? What happens if all schools, including the free school, are so small they can’t offer a wide range of subjects?
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/09/so-why-are-free-schools-established-is-it-to-help-the-disadvantaged-or-the-underperforming-is-it-to-fill-a-shortage-of-places-is-it-to-allow-teachers-to-set-up-their-own-schools-confused-messag/
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2012/september/5/free_school.aspx
What? Another link without any explanation or summary? Shan’t bother to click on it – it might be another joke website like the two you posted yesterday. Life’s too short to try and fathom out what point you are making if you’re too lazy to make it yourself.
You said all this about WLFS. Here is the situation at that school;
“Of our first 120 pupils, between 30 and 40 percent were black, Asian or minority ethnic and 23.5 percent were on free school meals. In our second cohort, the one we’ve just admitted, 28 percent are on free school meals. That’s the borough average for state secondary schools in Hammersmith and Fulham. The teaching unions warned us that free schools would increase social segregation, but ours hasn’t. On the contrary, it’s a genuine comprehensive.”
So please diarise a report on King’s School and I bet you are also wrong about it.
You seemed to be quoting from something Ben – could you provide a link? The info appears to be inaccurate. Hammersmith and Fulham – “36 per cent of our children attending school receive free school meals”.
http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/educationandlearning/cpdforschools/newlyqualifiedteachers/nqtinductionhandbook/hammersmithandfulham.aspx
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1788/the_free_schools_revolution
TB quotes the FSM borough average for secondary schools in LBHF, whereas the average quoted on your link is for all schools in LBHF.
Nice try though
Ben – so your source is an article by Toby Young plugging his book about how he fought off evil left-wingers to establish the most over-subscribed* school in London. A review of the book in TES concluded:
“If you’re interested in free schools, read the book. It’s cheap, well-written and you’ll learn a lot about Mr Young. But don’t expect it to be an entirely frank or trustworthy portrayal. After all, Toby Young is still a writer.”
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6158762
The free school meals figure for secondary schools in Hammersmith and Fulham still appears to be incorrect when compared with figures given in a paper deposited by Nick Gibb in the House of Commons Library on 17 April 2012 (DEP2012-0639) which said the “Percentage of [secondary] pupils known to be eligible for and claiming free school meals” in H+F is 32.1.
You can check this by searching for the deposited paper at:
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/commons/commonslibrary/
except there’s a snag. For some inexplicable reason the paper is not filed by its correct date (17 April 2012) but is hidden on 31 October 2011. I can think of no reason why the paper has been misfiled – perhaps someone wanted the paper buried.
*I discuss the reliability of oversubscription figures on this thread. It reveals, among other things, that the Independent found that only 250 of the 1,000+ parents who named WLFS actually put it as their first choice which rather puts the figure in perspective:
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/04/how-reliable-are-the-school-oversubscription-numbers-if-they-include-applications-from-parents-who-ranked-the-school-lower-than-first-place/
A genuine comprehensive would have the whole range of ability in the ratio 25% low achievers, 50% middle achievers and 25% high achievers. Can you confirm Ben that this is the ability profile of WLFS?
I sense desparation
You’re right Ben. The government are desperate to convince a dubious electorate of the merits of importing an education policy which has failed abroad. In fact the Tory conference was all a bit desperate wasn’t it?
Why is that desperate. It is a genuine question. You have said WLFS is a genuine comprehensive. On what basis have you declared this. It is relevant because the school was established on the premise that all children can access and achieve good grades an academic curriculum.
On basis of social profile it is written above.
We will have to wait and see with regard to distribution of ability.
Reply to Ben. You cannot declare a school a genuine comprehensive on the basis that 40% of the children are from an ethnic minority background. Or on the basis that 23% of them have free school meals. You know nothing about the ability range of either of those groups. I suspect that the ability range of WLFS will be skewed towards middle/higher achievers because of the curriculum it offered and the way it has been promoted.
Toby Young praised an academy school recently for achieving a nearly 100% A-C pass rate. What he did not say in the article was it was a school with nearly 60% high achievers and only 4% low achievers in the cohort. So the school was really only achieving what may have been expected of it.
Has anyone noticed if Gove and Co have extended their extravagant praise on the ARK chain by shining a light on the Bolingbroke Academy, which, as reported here by the London Evening Standard http://www.standard.co.uk/news/education/free-school-starts-term-in-borrowed-classrooms-a-mile-and-a-half-away-8206640.html has been forced to start term at an existing girls’ school a mile and a half away because their building is not ready?
This is yet another example of the chaos cause by free schools when contracts and funding are handed over by the DfE to an organisation with little thought about the impact on the disruption to children’s education because the school actually doesn’t have a site or is obliged to open before the site is ready, as is the case with King’s School. By some alchemy, confusion over sites seem always to favour the more affluent.
The Standard reports that Wandsworth Council paid a whopping £13m for the site. Warwick Mansell, in his piece for The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/oct/01/everton-football-academy-small-start?newsfeed=true reports that an FoI request has revealed that Bolingbroke has benefited from funding “similar to that received by many academies under the less cost-inhibited times of Labour,” receiving a staggering £25.95m from the DfE in site acquisition and construction costs.
This dwarfs the set-up costs of any other free school so far published by the DfE. Capital funding for 13 free schools that opened in 2011, published on the DfE’s website, say the highest overall cost was for a primary school: Eden primary in Haringey last year had a capital budget of £6m when it opened.
How can anyone sanely argue that free schools are about value for money, especially when the education budget has been slashed and numerous schools up and down the country are crying out for resources and money for essential building repairs?
Bolingbroke’s website says it only has 120 pupils, with a final capacity of only 600. If only such extravagance were lavished on maintained schools, who despite everything aren’t being outperformed by Gove’s shaky constructs, especially in London.
Much better! Yay – go Allan.
…..receiving a staggering £25.95m from the DfE in site acquisition and construction costs.
The nominal cost of acquiring the Bolingbrooke site was £13m. But because the site had previously been a hospital and was owned by the NHS, its acquisition with a grant from DfE is surely merely a ‘paper transfer’ – the government paid £13million and at the same time received £13m. From the taxpayer’s perspective it was free.
If only such extravagance were lavished on maintained schools…
A maintained school in an adjacent borough recently spent £23m on refurbishments……. before promptly converting to an academy.
Would you like to tell us which school this is? If true, then it must be one of literally a handful of schools amongst thousands which were in recept in £23m just for refurbishment. The country is littered with schools with, despite pleading, are teaching in old buildings that are not fit for purpose. Again typical that a schools destined for Academization got the cash while the rest go against the wall then get flaggelated by Gove and his henchmen for “failing”.
‘Indeed, it is important to note that about 70-80% of the positive impact does not stem from the fact that free schools are better than municipal schools – but rather that competition forces municipal schools to improve. It also turns out that the effects are not significant until after about one decade after the reform.’
http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/game-set-and-match-new-evidence-from-the-swedish-voucher-reform
I know that report’s been discredited before Guest.
Here’s one from a more reliable source which completely contradicts the conclusions you are so keen to cling on to:
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/equity-and-quality-in-education_9789264130852-en
‘We find that an increase in the share of independent-school students improves average
educational performance both at the end of compulsory school and in the long run in terms of high school grades, university attendance and years of schooling.
We further show that these effects are very robust with respect to a number of potential issues, such as grade inflation and pre-reform trends.
Interestingly, it appears that these positive effects are primarily due to spillover or competition effects and not that independent-school students gain significantly more than public school students.
Notably, because it has taken time for the independent schools to become more than a marginal phenomenon in Sweden, we have only been able to detect statistically significant positive effects for later years (about a decade after the reform).’
http://ftp.iza.org/dp6683.pdf
Rebecca – you’ll already know that the evidence linking the introduction of market forces into education is inconclusive (see faqs above) but I don’t know if you heard the Radio 4 programme, “The Report”, last night (11/10/12). The BBC interviewed Bertil Ostberg, the Swedish State Secretary for Education, and one of the pioneers of free schools in Sweden. He said the Swedish Government was increasingly concerned about the fact that most Swedish free schools, which can be run for profit, were run by three firms. He said the Swedish Government was starting an inquiry to investigate the long-term commitment of these firms to education. See the thread below for more details and a link to the programme and BBC article:
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/10/many-free-schools-are-significantly-undersubscribed-the-bbc-has-found/
Thanks Janet – yes I’ve heard it now. It’s excellent.
http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001071/index.shtml
DfE: Schools, Pupils and their Characteristics, January 2012
FSM% for secondary schools in LBHF is 30.5 or 32 depending on the data source.
So TB is between 2 to 4.5% wrong, which is his error but then again the difference is not very great.
Ben – you say “So TB (sic) is between 2 to 4.5% wrong, which is his error but then again the difference is not very great”. Toby Young wrote that the FSM% for Hammersmith and Fulham was 28% but both data sources (the paper deposited in the Commons Library and the spreadsheet contained in your link) give the FSM% for state secondary schools in Hammersmith and Fulham as 32%.
“His error” – I like that – do you think he will correct “his error”, or will it stand? Will “his error” be repeated in future articles?
Janet
The 32% figure was for 2011/12.
The intake Toby Young is referring to is for 2012/13.
We don’t know what the FSM figure is for that year.
Maybe TY does?
Ricky – the academic year 2012/13 began in September. The autumn school census did not take place until 4 October 2012 (returns expected 5 October 2012) – that’s six working days ago including today.
The DfE published the FSM eligibility figures for 2011/12 in June 2012 using figures from January 2012 (downloadable below in Excel format – see below). It is highly unlikely that the FSM% figures for 2012/13 will be known at this early stage and even less likely that they were known ready for publication in the article cited by Ben which was dated 11 October – only four working days from the submission of school census data.
In any case, the %FSM eligible pupils in Hammersmith and Fulham is rising. The lastest DfE figures (for Jan 2012) stated that the percentage of state secondary FSM pupils was 32%, but for primary pupils it was 37.3%.
http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001071/index.shtml
Sorry – the %FSM figure for secondary pupils in H+F was 30.5% not 32% as given above. The figure for primary pupils was 36.8% not 37.3%. The 32% figure and the 37.3% figure were for FSM pupils included school performance tables.
Always happy to correct my errors.
Janet
Why are you singling out WLFS anyway? Of the nine other mainstream secondaries in the borough, three (Sacred Heart, London Oratory and Lady Margaret) have FSM figures MUCH lower than WLFS.
Sacred Heart 7.1%
Oratory 6.3%
Lady Margaret 10.6%
(Source: DfE performance tables, School Characteristics)
The DfE source spreadsheet has two % figures in the tables so I quoted both. If is an error it should be corrected. It might actually not be an error, for instance if he is referring to a different period such as 2011.
Will this website publish corrections for schools misrepresented as excluding poor pupils when in fact the situation is not that?
Ben – the figures weren’t errors. They were taken from two different data sets although it’s not obvious when you scroll down the tables because the headings disappear. The first figure for FSM eligibility is based on the January 2012 school census and the second figure is based on school performance tables. As the school performance tables use test data from 2011 then I would assume that the first figure is the more up-to-date (see my post above 15/10/12 11.48 am).
Ricky – I didn’t “single out” WLFS. My replies were in response to Ben’s post which linked to an article by Toby Young which, as you might expect, spoke only about WLFS. As I made clear in my response to Ben, Young cited an inaccurate figure for %FSM eligibility in Hammersmith and Fulham. That was what I was discussing.
Nevertheless, your reply raises another interesting question: how is it that some schools in an area with a high FSM eligibility manage to recruit so few FSM pupils? I know that Oratory gives priory to RC pupils, but what about the other two? And Oratory also has very few low attaining pupils although it’s supposed to comprehensive.
Perhaps you could suggest answers to these questions.
Janet
how is it that some schools in an area with a high FSM eligibility manage to recruit so few FSM pupils?
I have argued here before that the chief reason for the seeming social apartheid in education in inner London is the fetish for ‘local schools’.
In the country, people think nothing of travelling many miles to school, but LSN and others seem to want Londoners to go to schools that are within walking distance of the front door.
Because our city housing stock is more or less arranged according to income, with social housing concentrated into pockets, owner-occupied housing broadly in streets of houses with roughly equal value etc., then local schools tend to reflect where on the income scale local parents are found.
I don’t pretend to be an expert on the topography of Hammersmith & Fulham, but it seems likely to me that the schools with the highest FSM will be those located within areas where the proportion of social housing is highest. Using Google maps satellite button on the area surrounding Burlington Danes confirms this hypothesis.
Sacred Heart school is a Catholic school; Lady Margaret’s is CofE.
I know of no evidence suggesting that Roman Catholics are richer than the general population, so I doubt whether giving preference to RC applicants is a particularly significant factor. (I may be wrong – it could be that practising Catholics are less likely to claim benefits and qualify for FSM, but I cannot think why this should be. I’ve heard of a Protestant work ethic, but not a Roman Catholic one.)
But anyway, that wouldn’t explain the CofE school.
And Oratory also has very few low attaining pupils although it’s supposed to comprehensive.
I think this one is easier to answer.
I don’t think it has been that the prospect of running into Nick Clegg at the school gate has frightened the lower attainers away.
Catholic (and other faith, CofE etc) primaries do tend to dominate the top slots in the primary league tables in many London boroughs. If a secondary largely recruits from Catholic primaries, therefore, it is unlikely to find many who’ve failed to achieve Level 4.
Ricky – there are many ways (subtle and unsubtle) whereby schools can dissuade low attaining or disadvantaged pupils from applying:
1 Ignoring the schools admission code and publishing admissions criteria which flouts the code.
2 Setting a catchment area which exludes disadvantaged areas and/or not naming schools in disadvantaged areas as feeder schools.
3 Having distinctive items of uniform which are more expensive than similar items on the high street.
4 Making it known that the curriculum is highly academic and won’t suit all children (the more vocationally inclined can apply elsewhere).
5 Giving priority to children from a private, fee-paying nursery.
6 Giving preference to pupils with a particular aptitude – music is a good one for filtering out disadvantaged children since these children are less likely to have had access to musical tuition.
The OECD warned in its 2011 Economic Survey of the UK that the excessive emphasis on exam results risked reverse “cream skimming” whereby disadvantaged pupils were discouraged from applying to schools which were focussed too much on league table position.
Perhaps that’s what has been hapenning.
Perhaps that’s what has been happening.
Mmmm……
Ignoring the schools admission code
I doubt if a high-profile school like the London Oratory would deliberately ignore/flout the statutory code, or get away with it without appeals to the adjudicator.
Setting a catchment area which exludes disadvantaged areas
LO doesn’t have a defined catchment area and doesn’t use distance criteria. It uses criteria ranking and random allocation as the ultimate tiebreaker oversubscription criterion.
It does have a reputation for academic achievement etc, but I can’t see what it’s supposed to do about that. It would be asking a bit much to tell the head to hide his light under a bushel.
“In the country, people think nothing of travelling many miles to school, but LSN and others seem to want Londoners to go to schools that are within walking distance of the front door.”
This might be a surprise to you Ricky, but in the country the pupils who travel many miles to school are likely to be still attending their local school. Population density in the country means that schools are widely spaced. Many market towns have only one secondary school which is sufficient for the local population.
It is, therefore, essential that all schools, local or not, are schools which provide a good education for ALL local children.
We have a headline for this posting which states that an attempt to provide ANY school for a particular part of Brighton is discriminatory just because the school location has to be in a nearby location and yet focus on the area lacking provision. No doubt any attempt to recruit across a wider area would also be criticised for failing local provision.
Still I am glad you agree all should have good schools and that implies such as letting people avoid bad schools.
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make Ben, as this latest comment doesn’t actually make sense.
I am glad that you have – finally! – understood that “we” have always and consistently argued for equal access to good schools for all. What is therefore needed is greater understanding of why some schools are severely challenged, greater financial and human resources, better teacher training (perhaps best, therefore, to have qualified teachers in schools?) and support from the government for schools, not the threat of punishment. What we don’t need is the chaos that Free Schools engender – at huge cost, serving so few and mainly the already advantaged.
But Allan are you really ready for what this means in terms of NOT controlling schools as mandatory recruitment centres for local populations?
And why this resistance to teacher training on the job? It happens in other professions.
Local authorities don’t “control” schools. If anyone is controlling it is Michael Gove. The question you might like to ask yourself is why you have convinced yourself that schools are “recruitment” centres? Recruiting for what? Employees? People to be brainwashed? I don’t think maintained schools are a front for cults, Ben.
There is currently teacher training on the job, that’s nothing new. But compare the level of training teachers in Finland with the dilettantes allowed now into the new schools. It may explain to some extent why Finland performs so well, with its cohesive and properly structured and implemented system, as opposed to the mess that we have adopted from America. I’m not sure I would unquestionably accept that any child be taught English Literature by someone with poor command of written English who had spent a year in a questionable establishment selling English lessons to foreigners on dubious visas.
If you want to attack my brother’s establishment which has tier 4 highly trusted sponsor status from UKBA, I will send you the name privately and you can publish that here and deal with the consequences. Stick to the point. Sounds like you don’t have anything substantial to offer as a reply. Please don’t mention my family unless you can substantiate something.
You are the one who wants to mandate attendance at local schools – look at the faqs on this website. Do you agree that people can choose or not? If I have got that wrong then please clarify.
Ben –
When did I mentioned your family? I don’t even know who you are, never mind your brother? Thanks for sharing the integrity of brother’s establishment with us, but you are the one who suddenly outed him. I’m not interested in hearing from you privately, but thank you for the offer.
You have got much that is wrong, Ben, but let me clarify about “choice”.
1. Central government telling local communities that the LA can’t supervise schools is not choice.
2. Central government dictating to councils that new schools have to Academies or Free Schools is not choice.
3. Central government telling communities that they can have a free school or nothing, not even an Academy, is not choice.
4. Under the free school movement, there could be multiple local applications for a new school – but the choice of which type of school will emerge – and exactly who or what runs it – rests not with parents but with the Education Secretary, who will ultimately decide which sort of school he deems best. This is not choice.
5. If parental choice was at the centre of this programme, parents would first be asked if they wanted an local authority funded or centrally-funded school, before then being asked what changes they would like to see on that school’s curriculum from the standard. Since Gove has had legislation passed to deny parents this option, then this is not choice.
6. Coventry Council Council want to open two new much needed primary schools and got funding and land for it. http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/10/coventry-what-happens-when-a-local-authority-is-prevented-from-opening-and-running-new-schools/ They are prevented from doing so. The only way these schools, which would teach 700 children, can open is if they are Free Schools. But if there are not free schools proposers and no Academy chains interested, then parents are being denied primary schools. This is not choice.
7. When a significant number of free schools are undersubscribed, this does not increase choice.
8. Pitting schools in unhealthy competition with each other, which is what DfE is now doing, and causing schools to become extinct does not increase choice.
9. Wanting to increase the number of free schools because the policy is stalling and failing does not choice.
10. Grammar schools do not increase choice if you fail to get in.
11. Faith schools do not increase choice if you are the wrong religion or not religious.
Choice is a fake concept when it comes to schools because for the minority who may have the luxury of choice, the majority don’t have it for any of the reasons listed above.
What we have is increased chaos. Not increased choice.
12. Having two small secondary schools with limited options compared with one large secondary school with lots of options decreases choice.
13. Having a regulator which relentlessly ignores the regulators’ code and instead behaves in ways which have been rigorously proven to decrease diversity reduces choice.
14. Making rapid changes to schools without considering the consequences of those changes is likely to create or leave some schools without decent top sets in core subject, making it extremely difficult for bright children who attend those schools to excel academically. Where’s the choice in that?
You might have some points there but let’s look at the alternative which you envisage.
Local authorities run one form of school, which mandates recruitment from a local catchment. That’s it.
Your world is too small you have no vision.
I suspect that as things progress we will see more local integration and collaboration. At the moment Gove has his work cut out to disrupt a system which is turgid, lethargic, unreflective, unable to respond. It cannot detect its own error. Something new and better is coming from this.
Yes the chaos of creativity from grass roots is there but the creativity is something which I thought you valued. That is the nature of human beings and their narrative. There will be a profound sense making that teachers, parents and children will start to achieve when command and control of the school system is abandoned.
I think you conceive of education as if controllable by a heating thermostat. The thing is your thermostat is now more than 40 years old, never worked in the first place and had designers and operators who were not really competent (even though they tried sometimes). They became fixated on a small thing inside and missed the bigger opportunity beyond their walls.
Don’t create straw men to shoot down Ben. It can work in political speeches but on a discussion forum it just spells out in detail your ignorance.
I envisage a world where change is coherently planned and consulted so that its impact is understood, costed and planned for before that change is given the green light. You don’t yet know the difference between this kind of world and the one Gove is creating because you haven’t worked in a school in a tough area which is a good school but is rapidly losing numbers for reasons totally beyond its control (because there are places in a new school with great resources or in a school which is just in a posh area). You have no idea how awful it is for the children and the teachers and you should respect the fact that I do and my comments are justified and grounded in experience.
I envisage a world where state schools are treated like all other organisation and are allowed to have a decent regulator rather than one which is there to bully them for benefit of politicians. You write in a patronising way about “a system which is turgid, lethargic, unreflective, unable to respond. It cannot detect its own error” and how the “creativity” which only exist in chaos. You are so ignorant of the reality of the creativity of which is there but which is relentlessly wiped out due to our having an abysmal regulator which directly contravenes all the best practice in regulatory behaviour which is know to allow oganisations the freedom innovate and use a healthy diversity of practice.
I envisage a world where the limitations created by our outdated exams system are substantially overcome by the adoption of far better systems which integrates formative and summative assessment, providing students, parents, teachers and society with much more detailed and productive information and which enables some of the problems of narrow, high stakes assessment to be overcome.
You, Ben, are extremely arrogant and deeply ignorant. How the heck do you dare to suggest that it is I who do not understand the issues here. Where is your evidence? It is you who is living in a naive little political bubble. I don’t blame you for that – you didn’t create the bubble. It shouldn’t exist. Nobody should every have let a Murdoch hack with no experience of achieving anything in the management of organisations, no higher level qualifications such as an MBA and no human credibility with people who work in vocations such as education take charge of state education. But I do blame you for not being aware that people who have had substantial successful careers in education probably do have some insight into issues which you could learn from and for being completely blind to your own lack of experience.
Ben
Firstly, you bizarrely accuse me of attacking your brother and his establishment and for mentioning your family when I made absolutely no reference to them whatsoever. I don’t know what this says about you but I could hazard a guess….
Secondly, you reply to my reasons why choice is a red herring not with a coherent argument that choice really exists but with a rant about knackered thermostats and the narrative of human beings.
You say “something new and better is coming from this” but grand delusion and blind faith are not the best starting points for policies. Nor are they good enough reasons to support a system that has already been implemented over 20 years in America and which has failed to improve American schools across the board or to any miraculous degree.
You have never advanced a rational argument about choice and I now doubt you ever will Ben. I fear you’ve either lost the plot or lost your marbles!
Oh dear we can generalise from your instance to all but what children and parents want is irrelevant because they are ignorant and arrogant. The mask has fallen off I am afraid.
You’ve tried to say free schools meet no need, would not be oversubscribed, would not draw from their whole community, should have a large catchment, a small catchment. It’s wrong or contrary. We have instances where this is not true even whilst I would acknowledge the potential for failure. I can conceive of systematic remedies. Can you?
Are you a member of a professional body education? That’s a rhetorical question but I find your observations on my character astonishing if you are. I have no doubt that you are intelligent and skilled but where is the manner?
“what children and parents want is irrelevant because they are ignorant and arrogant. The mask has fallen off I am afraid.”
Ben what experience do you have of taking the views of children and parents into account? Why on earth do you think that I am inexperienced in doing that and do not understand the issues and that you have some insight which am unable to access?
“You’ve tried to say free schools meet no need, would not be oversubscribed, would not draw from their whole community, should have a large catchment, a small catchment. It’s wrong or contrary. We have instances where this is not true even whilst I would acknowledge the potential for failure. I can conceive of systematic remedies. Can you?”
Clearly I have not said that. In cases where free schools meet a local need they meet it. In some cases they clearly don’t. In others that need could have been met in a better way.
“Are you a member of a professional body education? That’s a rhetorical question but I find your observations on my character astonishing if you are. I have no doubt that you are intelligent and skilled but where is the manner?”
Since we’re linked on Linkedin you are aware of my teaching experience and also that I know you don’t have any. I have an MA (cantab), a PGCE, an MEd and am TESOL qualified. What are your qualifications? I’m a member of several educational associations but I don’t generally publicise either them or the organisations I work for as some delightfully charming characters in cyberspace have felt the need to make up systematic lies about me and send them to organisations I am association with in order to discredit the truth (http://cyberrhetoricbyrebeccahanson.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/how-to-manage-agenda-of-form-if-you.html). What organisations in education do you contribute your time and effort to Ben?
No contributions currently. I have a CELTA and did some work in an English language school with adult learners. I work in construction now which I what did prior to that. I sometimes help a colleague these days.
All of this is really irrelevant it is not necessary to be professionally qualified to have an opinion about education.
Hopefully I will get RICS status in next couple of years and everyone will know. Why on earth be a professional and hide it?
All I am interested in is education by consent and fulfilling lives. Most people seem driven to achieve something, our schools do not give that enough.
Some posts above discuss the FSM figure for the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF). This followed a link provided by Ben Taylor to an article in the Commentator claiming that the FSM eligibility figure for secondary pupils in LBHF was 28% which is the same figure as in the second cohort at the West London Free School. The discussion ranged around how up-to-date were the figures, the sources (DfE used two different data sets from 2011 and January 2012) and whether the article’s author,Toby Young, had access to figures for 2012/13.
Hammersmith and Fulham have given me the latest figures which were compiled in May 2012. They are as follows:
“Primary 37% eligible
Secondary 40 % eligible
Special Schools 49% eligible.”
So, according to LBHF, the average FSM eligibility figure for secondary pupils for May 2012 in LBHF is 40%. The 28% figure quoted in the article linked by Ben is, therefore, incorrect.
Have you checked these figures are equivalent to the DfE source, because their definition for both sets of data is, “Percentage known to be eligible for and claiming free school meals”?
The % you quote are for those eligible, but not necessarily claiming. Can that be confirmed?
Ben – can I suggest that you contact LBHF yourself as I did. You could ask how many pupils in LBHF are actually claiming FSM. If there is a big gap between those eligible and those claiming, perhaps you could ask LBHF, even individual schools, what they are doing to ensure eligible pupils claim the free school meals they are entitled to.
When you’ve found the answers, you can post them here.
You quoted the figures from LBHF and said that Toby Young was therefore inaccurate in his claim in the Commentator. However the information you quoted is not necessarily equivalent as described above.
So we cannot conclude that your statement regarding the difference between your LBHF figures and Toby Young’s is correct, namely, “The 28% figure quoted in the article linked by Ben is, therefore, incorrect”.
You are making this claim, not me. I think the duty is on you to clarify with LBHF.
No, Ben, it is not my “duty” to clarify the figures with LBHF. If you wish to discover whether the figures are “equivalent” or not then you can do so. And it is not my “claim” that the figures for secondary school eligibility in LBHF is 40%. That is the figure that was given to me this morning by LBHF in response to a Freedom of Information request.
If you think the secondary figure of 40% is unreliable, you can contact LBHF yourself and ask for the source of the data. Or perhaps you could ask Toby Young where he found the data and helpfully provide a link.
I look forward to reading your answer in about three working days.
Janet
Are you sure these figures apply to all schools in the borough (including academies)?
I ask because the LBHF publication “Table Showing Individual Pupil Premium Allocations per School” lists only maintained schools.
(Sorry I can’t link to this PDF, but you can download it by putting the title into Google).
Ricky – Local Authority maintained schools are paid the Pupil Premium by their LA who receive a specific grant based on January school census figures for pupils registered as eligible (not just claiming) for FSM in reception to Year 11. The Pupil Premium for academies was paid via the Young Peoples’ Learning Agency which has now closed and been replaced by the Education Funding Agency (EFA). It is likely that any LA list giving the amount of Pupil Premium allocated to each school would only contain LA maintained schools as LAs would have no way of knowing how much Pupil Premium was received by individual academies.
However, if you think that the figures I gave above and which were provided by LBHF only refer to FSM eligibility in schools maintained by LBHF, then perhaps you could ask LBHF to clarify the situation. You can then post the clarification here.
http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/pupilsupport/premium/b0076063/pp
To Janet
Since the % FSM for eligible and claiming secondary school pupils in LBHF is either 30.5 or 32 according to DfE and Toby Young reports 28% for WLFS, he is at most 4.5% out.
You cannot rely on a figure reporting 40% eligibility of secondary school pupils for FSM in LBHF, but not containing any information about claiming FSM, in order to make this statement: “The 28% figure quoted in the article linked by Ben is, therefore, incorrect.”
I believe your report of the figure of 40% and trust LBHF. This is not the issue. Neither is the discrepany in underclaimants versus potential claimants and the social undesirability of this.
You are adding up oranges and lemons to arrive at a sum of pears. You are relying on this reasoning to make a statement which we also cannot rely on.
Ben – I take your point that there is likely to be a difference between the percentage of pupils who are eligible for FSM and those who are claiming. The original article spoke of pupils “on school meals” which I suppose means “claiming.” In which case, you can either (a) find this figure from Hammersmith and Fulham yourself, or (b) give the source of the figures in the original article with link.
As the figures in the article were so confidently expressed, I should think option (b) would probably be the quickest.
And, Ben, I am not a statistician, but 4.5% gap between 28% and 32% is actually a gap of 4%. However, if the 4 is expressed as a fraction of 32, then that’s an error margin of 12.5% (I think). Perhaps Paul Brown, the statistician who posted on the “Statistics watchdog” thread could explain margins of error, how they are calculated (preferably avoiding those fearsome equations) and what margin of error is considered statistically acceptable.
Ben – Latest FSM figures from Hammersmith and Fulham:
Uptake of the eligibility
Primary 85%
Secondary 78%
The eligibility of primary school pupils was 37%, so 85% of 37% is 30.45%. So, the percentage of primary school pupils in Hammersmith and Fullham who are eligible for free school meals AND claiming is 30.45%.
The eligibility of secondary school pupils was 40%, so 78% of 40% is 31.2%. So, the percentage of secondary school pupils in Hammersmith and Fulham who are eligible for free school meals AND claiming is 31.2%.
According to Hammersmith and Fulham’s own figures, then, the 28% figure quoted in the article linked by Ben which said the average percentage of secondary pupils eligible for AND claiming free school meals in H&F is incorrect.
Unless my sums are wrong, of course. I didn’t use a calculator.
Yes I think that if the figures are correct that the secondary figure is about 32% versus that reported by TY of 28%. 32% also agrees with one of the DfE figures.
It’s still not a bad effort from WLFS and if we say the cohort is 120 that means they should have 4% more on FSM to hit the average, which in numbers of children is 1.2* 4 = 4.8, rounded to 5.
The best thing is if he now answers for himself since there may be a reason he is right such as a moving target. I understand their % is better than many other LBHF schools.