On Wednesday 12 January 2011 the Department for Education published schools’ spending data for 2009-10. This data comes from their Consistent Financial Reporting returns and is grouped into categories of income and expenditure. The Department has also included key performance indicators for Key Stage 2 and GCSEs.
This is part of the Department’s aim to make more of its statistics available and supports the Coalition Government’s data transparency agenda. In order to make this data more accessible to the general public we have published it in a clear and simple format. In addition, the Department is publishing the raw data files so that people can further analyse the data themselves.
The Department wants to encourage parents and the wider public to look at the data and to compare the spending and performance of schools in their local area. The school spending tables have been published in three Excel workbooks separated into primary, secondary and special schools. The primary and secondary tables include a key performance indicator for Key Stage 2 and GCSEs respectively. The fourth workbook contains the raw data. All of these tables can be found in the ‘Associated resources’.
The illustrated data above is the expenditure per pupil for Duke Street (2009 - 2010). We leave parents to study this information and to give us your feedback.
The only comment that we wish to make is with respect to the school’s Supply Teacher expenditure which we consider to be excessive and is one of the highest within Lancashire. (There is a corresponding deficit in the school’s permanent Teaching Staff costs.)
It seems inappropriate that Duke Street is so reliant on supply teachers. Staff stability and performance are generally better in schools with permanent positions. We suggest this observation to be a contributory factor in Duke Street’s disappointing academic Ofsted performance figures.
11 comments:
I think Mrs. Quinton retired years ago. Why is she still here ?
Another question - Why is Mr Kidd still here? If you got rid of him, the school would save money and I bet the school would do better too.
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."
Looks like there's a shortfall of £65 - that explains the misery !
It's not £65 it's £65 x 248 = £16,120 p.a.
If I was short by that much then I'd be miserable too !
I went to Duke Street many years ago. In those days it had a good reputation in Chorley. Class sizes were big and I think that there were something like 400 or more pupils. Today I still live near the school. It doesn't look like it used to and I wonder how much money has been wasted in producing such an ugly building? All those bright blue ceramic tiles that make it look like a cross between a public toilet and an industrial unit. And what are those two towers that look like look-out posts all about? My school was just good old Accrington brick. It looked like it had always been there, part of Chorley's history. They say things change for the better but I'm glad that I went to Duke Street when I did. Couldn't they have saved a lot of money and preserved a piece of our heritage by investing in repairs of the old building or maybe I'm just too old and out of date in what I think?
It seems that the builders had a surplus of blue ceramic bricks that no one wanted to use - no surprise there! To get rid of them they told Mr Kidd that they would be great for a new school building and everyone would like the result. But Mr Kidd was having none of it. They were about to give up on the bricks when somebody said "Everton's home colours are blue and white!" - now we have a blue and white school!
It seems that no one knows what the two towers are for - some say that they're for machine gun nests but they're too small. Others have pointed out that there's an aluminium triangular 'thingy' inside and that maybe its to do with some sort of laser light show?
Whatever, I have to agree with Charlie: "A monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend."
it strikes me that the head isn't reaching his targets and is hiding the school's poor performance rather than coming clean. i think that it'll be sorted out by the new education bill. michael gove says that if a school's not doing well then he'll sort it out.
It looks as though the school is paying £64,480 per annum for supply teachers’ salaries.
Some of you think that these figures are too low. So under the Freedom of Information Act, we have requested confirmation of this data directly from Lancashire County Council.
For those interested, you can make your own request for information by visiting the website :
What Do They Know ?
It is suprising how much schoools spend on supply teachers. This is not just Duke street, covering for teachers sick leave is high in all schools including High schools. I don't think Duke street is alone in this. Maybe the teachers sickness should be questioned and schools not to be paying for teachers having so much time off sick with pay may help. This is not a problem with the school as such but with some teachers who take advantage of paid leave.
We believe that Mr. Kidd's policies and actions have resulted in many experienced teachers being 'encouraged' to leave Duke Street - Janet McGloughlin being the most recent casualty / victim.
(Some of these ex-teachers have confirmed our observations in this regard.)
The consequential impact has resulted in an ever increasing failure to meet the requirements of 'best teaching practices' which has been reflected by the Ofsted report of March 2010.
Mr. Kidd continues to perpetuate a myth that the school is well-managed and that all is well through his denial of the Ofsted 2010 conclusions - prefering to publicize the findings of the Ofsted 2007 report.
His overall attitude is to blame the continuing disappointing performance on the remaining teachers whilst presenting a false image to parents and prospective parents.
"The school provides good value for money"
This is on the last line of the above page of the school's web site. (Click the above link.)
The top line, of the same page, starts :
"In our most recent Ofsted inspection in July 2007, the following was reported by the team:"
Maybe Mr Kidd should update both these comments. It certainly isn't the most recent Ofsted inspection and the school might no longer be considered to be good value for money !
I agree with the views of this forum - why can't Mr Kidd begin to tell it as it is ?
Post a Comment