Confused about funding.

[Peanut68]

My big issue with MDS funding....it seems that the 4 schools each have a certain number they can give out each year. This is not at all transparent - though I very much think it should be. It appears that at RBS - & perhaps Elmhurst too? - all who qualify for school year 7-11 entry (roughly ages 11-17) & based I believe on Euro/UK residence qualifying period of 3 years, will be awarded an MDS. They will then be means tested & the amount the government pay will be on a sliding scale so the more affluent a family the higher the contribution towards training they pay.  With the other 2 schools they will then have a handful of MDS to award across the age groups. Seems fair so far? BUT, we all know the more affluent a family does often mean the more prepared/experienced/trained the DC's may be. They may have benefitted from one to one coaching, lots of course/associate schemes/summer schools & the support of parents who can afford to drive them around the country to train. So a DC with raw untrained talent/ability/potential may not be the 'best' at audition due to circumstance & lack of opportunity. Now, I have no problem with the places (& even the funding) being offered to the best first. This is as it should be. BUT, if many of these then attract very little funding due to high family income, then this money 'saved' by the government should go back into the funding pot & be able to be re-offered by the schools to other candidates. There could well be some years when RBS for instance may be sending the government a comparatively small bill for funding for one intake year as that year the most talented by & large were fairly well off. another year, there may be more variance & so the bill to the tax payer is much larger. This seems a bizarre way to offer funding & must make it impossible for a school to predict cash-flow/manage costs (& thus possibly rely on offering a certain number of places to those who can pay full fees & accept a place pre-funding auditions) . Surely the fair thing is for the schools to have a set amount of funding each year that can be allocated - the more higher fee paying pupils should just mean they can then offer more funding places to lower income families too. I think it unlikely that one year all accepted would be affluent.....I think better that no offers can be made until after funding auditions. So all 4 schools should operate a 2 round audition cycle with places being offered strictly on talent/potential . The schools will know their 'income' is guaranteed as they have a set amount that can come in via funding....if more MDS are awarded to lower income families. I bet the 'flex' from year to year would be very minimal. The other thing in my opinion is that this needs to be 'policed' much more stringently as stories abound of people 'hiding' income/partners/fathers etc to reduce their household income threshold & thus lower their personal bill & get more paid via MDS. Again, gossip may not be founded in truth, but whilst everything is misty as far as funding, then this will long continue. Why all the secrecy? All the stories of 'well, boys will get funding over girls' etc etc? Lets face it, it deems currently just 4 schools worthy of support so the maximum really they are looking at as possible recipients is what 12 girls/12 boys across them per year? That's less than 100 children per year. Unlikely that all 100 will be UK MDS qualifiers as several of the best kids accepted will be from overseas. So, taxpayer bill is lower already. Then sure, one year may see the demographic mix is higher proportion of lower income families requiring more MDS money but I bet my bottom dollar that in another year this will be offset as it just so happens that more talented kids hail from richer families so the bill to support that group annually will be less. Surely this is the only way to offer funding fairly?

Or maybe go to some sort of talent competition & award the money in principle to the child first who can then with knowledge of level of funding  available to them then audition where they can afford/are best suited (as this may entail things like location too) & it can be more of a joint selection process between the government, the schools & the individual dancers too? This could possibly open up funding to be used at other worthy establishments also (though I do think all training institutions/programmes should meet set criteria & certain standards).

I think key to all this is to make more funding in schools etc available for all children to have the opportunity to try dance (& this same principle I think could be applied to funding for music/sports etc) to find those naturally talented individuals & nurture them in a fairly funded programme whilst young to try & create a more even playing field where talent speaks louder than cash!

Apologies all...this is rather a long (& possibly muddled) statement, I by no means wish offence to anyone, just interested in discussion!

One Q maybe someone can answer....does the government publish data on the MDS funding year on year? Also, do the schools? I am sure this is information should be available in the public domain (& available without the secrecy & subterfuge it appears - at least to me - to currently have?). I do commend families who find the money 'come what may' & also all those other funding bodies such as the schools own bursary schemes, other charitable fund providers & benefactors who make it possible for our DC's to be working on achieving their dreams!

[bluebell]

I think that the fact that we have any sort of Government funding at all for dance,drama and music in the Uk is fantastic! And I feel it shouldn't be taken for granted either..

However I do feel that schools should initially award the MDS/DADA without any previous knowledge of the students financial background so that everyone is on a level playing field and funding is purely awarded on talent not financial need.But it's not just "talent" in the ballet world that kids are awarded funding for..it's ideal body shape,length of limb,feet etc etc and kids have these ideal attributes regardless of financial background

Every family is different..and have different priorities-especially when it comes to finances.

It might not seem fair that slife an afford more private lessons than others...life isn't fair..it's what you make of it and this applies throughout your entire life.

There isn't enough funding for everyone..this is a fact..there aren't enough dance contracts at the end of years of dedication,hard work and training..this is a fact.

Vocational school training is tough!! Not every child is suited to it regardless of background..not every child will stay the course..due to physical,emotional financial reasons..very few will be offered a contract at the end of years of training..but there is always something you can do dance related if you so chose or go off at a tangent and do something completely different!

Just grab every opportunity that life throws at you..some you can afford others you can't..never mind something else will come along! Don't get too hung up about those who are on high or low incomes...make the most of what you have:)

[Anon2]

I may be being naive but do the audition panel study any information given on the application form regarding funding, they look at the raw talent in front of them on the day and make their offers. They leave the sorting out of finances to the financial director and bursar.

[Harwel]

Completely agree with you bluebell.

 

The panel are best suited to decide who is talented and who they feel is right for their school. Thankfully we have a few top schools and they all look for something slightly different. We are a extremely fortunate in this country that funding is given at all.

 

My DC was under no illusions that at audition, no funding meant no place. At year 7 he was unsuccessful at gaining a place, at year 10 he was. We did not moan about how unfair it was - it wasn't, he didn't have what they wanted at that time compared to the other children auditioning. He worked hard, kept his focus and tried again. Who knows what the future holds for him. If he makes it to a professional company, fantastic, as that is what he wants at this moment and what he is working extremely hard to achieve. If that is not for him, he will be upset, he will dust himself down and get on with the next phase of his life knowing he has the courage to aim for his dreams but sometimes life throws a curve ball and life carries on. Life is what you make it.

[Picturesinthefirelight]

My dh sits on degree & dada audition panels though not MDS.

 

The panel have no info about candidates financial circumstances. The only info they have is info they may need to conduct the audition.

[Peanut68]

I should perhaps have added into my first post that it is great that there is this government funding for dance training. I guess my main thrust was that there does appear to be inconsistencies & a somewhat 'cloak & dagger' approach to info/decisions etc. It only appears 'simple' when looking at RBS as all places can potentially be funded. This lack of upfront knowledge does make it hard to manage family & DC expectations - maybe fewer would audition which would be bad as talent may be missed who may just have got that funding (& cynically - sorry! - schools would make less money from the audition fees charged)

I certainly hope all with the fire in their belly & the passion to follow their dreams carry on & try for those places this year. And as the saying goes....if at first you don't succeed, then try, try again!

[Mumofthree]

yeah you see i guess everyones financial situation is individual and I do have friends who have a greater household income but as they have significantly greater mortgages/debt/other children they don't have the same disposable income as we do which is why I feel fortunate that we are able to afford to send our children to so many classes and activities. I really am so grateful for that because I know many families just cant even afford that. I'm also fortunate in the respect that yes our household income is 'low' compared to most but its because I only work 18hrs a week (currently on maternity leave) and I do that so that we don't have to pay for childcare, and so that I'm around for my kids and I'm able to take them to classes and activities and generally give them the best life we know how. If I worked full time our wages would increase significantly but then I simply wouldn't have the time to be taking them to lessons so I don't think you can compare one person to the next in that way.

  I do feel however the funding process could be more transparent though. it is confusing and for people like me that want to plan for the future id like to be able to say yes or no whether we can afford for my DD to go to vocational training in the future and then id know how much time and effort and money to put into her dancing in these early years. I know its not as simple as this but it would be nice to say 'ok yes my DD meets 'x' criteria in terms of ability and talent and so this means we will be eligible for 'x' amount of funding. that way at least people know where they stand rather than sending their kids through the stress of auditions and setting them on this path only to even be offered a place and not be able to afford it. I cannot imagine the heartbreak of this. if it was me auditioning I would rather be told I was poor and didn't meet the level of talent required rather than be told here yes have a place and then not be able to afford it. I think DH and I would end up being on of those couples who ends up remorgaging the house rather than tell our DD she cant go because we cant afford it but then again I do fully appreciate not everyone has that equity in their property either.

[Mumofthree]

I should perhaps have added into my first post that it is great that there is this government funding for dance training. I guess my main thrust was that there does appear to be inconsistencies & a somewhat 'cloak & dagger' approach to info/decisions etc. It only appears 'simple' when looking at RBS as all places can potentially be funded. This lack of upfront knowledge does make it hard to manage family & DC expectations - maybe fewer would audition which would be bad as talent may be missed who may just have got that funding (& cynically - sorry! - schools would make less money from the audition fees charged)

I certainly hope all with the fire in their belly & the passion to follow their dreams carry on & try for those places this year. And as the saying goes....if at first you don't succeed, then try, try again!

I agree with you peanut68 - I think to some extent schools probably shouldn't even charge for the auditions but again if there was more transparency with funding then yes maybe fewer would apply and yes maybe some talented dancers would slip the net - but surely this is the case in absolutely any profession where talent is concerned, there's inevitable going to be academic kids who don't end up in academic professions for similar reasons - but I don't see the point in auditioning if you cant afford to follow through with the training and I guess that's why I posted in the first place, I know its impossible to get a finite answer but I would love to be able to sit there with a calculate and say 'yes we'll be able to afford it lets go for it' or 'no this is not possible lets get off this train before any heartbreak'.

  again to some extent my daughter is 6 nearly 7 - she's teeny compared to many and I'm the first to admit so so so many things may change her path/talent/mind but I would like to put a vague plan for the future, we will able to apply for JA schemes next year as shell be 8 next feb so could start a year in sept, but what's the point if we cant afford to continue on that path. yes shell get the training, yes she'll enjoy it but in reality whats the end result? going back to comprehensive school and her talent ends up wasted.

[Peanut68]

Wise words Mumofthree.....there are so many factors at play.

If awarded an MDS, household income is looked at with a small adjustment made for additional dependant children/those in full time education etc. However - it can never hope to reflect each individual set of circumstances. A minefield too when you look at such factors as geography as we all know that to have a very basic home/lifestyle can cost considerably more depending on where you may have to live (& we cannot all just up sticks & move based on one childs ballet dreams!). Also we parents all want to treat each offspring the same & provide equal opportunities & fair use of income. However, this is unlikely to be possible if a high contribution to fees for one DC has to be made....Could lead to sibling resentment etc.  The current system does also presume that parents are willing to make a contribution. I do worry that there must be umpteen children out there dearly holding the dream to train but who are not even allowed the opportunity to try as parents not happy/not able (as may already be financially committed despite a very high income) to let them audition/take up places.

I pity those families with multiple talented (in whatever field) children who each deserve additional training!

Good luck & best wishes to everyone!

[Anon2]

My dh sits on degree & dada audition panels though not MDS.

 

The panel have no info about candidates financial circumstances. The only info they have is info they may need to conduct the audition.

Thanks Pictures that confirmed what I hoped and believed.

 

Mumofthree the criteria for funding is a changing commodity so I think you can make plans but the goal posts change and you have to adapt or otherwise with them. For example my dd received a MDS for lower school at the time funding for DaDA was very simple. Everyone got the same for their sixth form training as long as they meet residency criteria regardless of parental income. The year before my dd auditioned for sixth form DaDA funding became means tested with the parental income cap being £70000, the year following my dd being accepted into sixth form the cap was increased to £90000 and the bands for parental income were much greater. So if she had been a year younger our termly contribution would easily cover the current yearly contribution for our income band. At the beginning of her vicational school journey we believed sixth form would be more financially manageable but the powers that be changed the funding. It could all change a number of times before your dd is old enough to audition.

At the age your dd is it never crossed my mind dd would end up following this route. She did her various dance and drama classes because she enjoyed them, they were a good social opportunity and they used up some of her endless amounts of energy. I don't think at 6 you can look at the financial/time input at anything other than what she is gaining now.

[Peanut68]

I agree with you peanut68 - I think to some extent schools probably shouldn't even charge for the auditions but again if there was more transparency with funding then yes maybe fewer would apply and yes maybe some talented dancers would slip the net - but surely this is the case in absolutely any profession where talent is concerned, there's inevitable going to be academic kids who don't end up in academic professions for similar reasons - but I don't see the point in auditioning if you cant afford to follow through with the training and I guess that's why I posted in the first place, I know its impossible to get a finite answer but I would love to be able to sit there with a calculate and say 'yes we'll be able to afford it lets go for it' or 'no this is not possible lets get off this train before any heartbreak'.

  again to some extent my daughter is 6 nearly 7 - she's teeny compared to many and I'm the first to admit so so so many things may change her path/talent/mind but I would like to put a vague plan for the future, we will able to apply for JA schemes next year as shell be 8 next feb so could start a year in sept, but what's the point if we cant afford to continue on that path. yes shell get the training, yes she'll enjoy it but in reality whats the end result? going back to comprehensive school and her talent ends up wasted.

Again - I share your sentiments & concern & you have a level head as regards to knowing the possible changes that may happen along the way to put an end to any aspirations too such as loss of interest, other new dreams, change in body shape/aptitude/injury etc etc... & again - this can be reflected in so many other things such as you say as academic kids missing out maybe as parents don't believe in one type of education/university etc. We all have examples I am sure from our own histories!

But like you, I just wanted to get 'a realistic handle' on the whole thing to manage dreams/expectations & perhaps even forward plan a little. Do I for instance just get back into fulltime career focussed work to negate reliance on funding? But then at what family life cost? The old life/work balance issue is even more in focus once you look at paying for al that dance & other such activities cost in terms of money & time......sigh.

[Peanut68]

Thanks Pictures that confirmed what I hoped and believed.

 

Mumofthree the criteria for funding is a changing commodity so I think you can make plans but the goal posts change and you have to adapt or otherwise with them. For example my dd received a MDS for lower school at the time funding for DaDA was very simple. Everyone got the same for their sixth form training as long as they meet residency criteria regardless of parental income. The year before my dd auditioned for sixth form DaDA funding became means tested with the parental income cap being £70000, the year following my dd being accepted into sixth form the cap was increased to £90000 and the bands for parental income were much greater. So if she had been a year younger our termly contribution would easily cover the current yearly contribution for our income band. At the beginning of her vicational school journey we believed sixth form would be more financially manageable but the powers that be changed the funding. It could all change a number of times before your dd is old enough to audition.

At the age your dd is it never crossed my mind dd would end up following this route. She did her various dance and drama classes because she enjoyed them, they were a good social opportunity and they used up some of her endless amounts of energy. I don't think at 6 you can look at the financial/time input at anything other than what she is gaining now.

Maybe we all just need to assume that all our kids are gonna cost us a fortune in some way or other & just get on that gravy train to earn & save as much as we can from the day they are a mere twinkle in someone's eye!

[Lema]

Mumofthree first of all let me apologise in advance if this comes off as long winded or muddled but I'm going to be responding to a number of comments you have made over the past couple of posts...

First of all you mentioned about schools charging for audition, well I was told by a dance teacher that by charging a relatively high audition fee the schools would only get serious candidates applying as if you weren't really that serious you wouldn't be prepared to pay £35/£40 to audition. This to me makes great sense as if it was just a free open audition you would get a very high volume of dancers go along to auditions just to give it a go, get a free class in a top school, get audition practice etc so then the schools would have to put on more dates taking up more of the panel and teachers valuable time doing auditions for people who actually have no intention of going to the school even if they were lucky enough to be offered a place, so I for one actually agree with the fee (even if I would much rather not have to pay it lol)

My next issue is in response to you saying that you could see you and your husband remortgaging your house rather than having to disappoint dd if offered a place but no funding. Like you said that isn't even an option for most but even if it was with fee's being £30-£35k+ per year, plus throw in all the extras of insurance, house funds, school trips, travel, uniform etc some people may be able to scrape together enough to fund a year or two but what if dd was never offered funding, could you fund all 5 year of lower school not to mention upper school!! This is exactly why I've said previously that you have to prepare children to understand that if they don't secure funding then they don't go, and make sure they understand that not gettig funding doesn't mean they weren't good enough, it just means that there wasn't enough funding to take everyone and they just happen to be the one that didn't get it, so you brush yourself of and carry on. It is absolutely a heartbreaking situation to be in as you said, but because if your dc are well prepared and understand the situation then they cope with it just fine and it teaches them that they aren't going to be handed everything on a plate, that they must work hard to achieve the things they want and it gives them drive and passion and something to aim towards.

My next reply is to you saying that you'd like the funding to be more transparent to you could have some idea on if it is achievable for your family and whether there is any point funding training now, firstly I completely understand where you are coming from as when my dd first auditioned last year I spent a lot of time on this forum asking questions about expenses and fees etc but you can't base dd's training on the likelihood of her being able to get into vocational school as without a crystal ball that's something you will never know, allow her to train if she loves it and you can afford it because even if she changes her mind in years to come, or doesn't get into vocational school it won't have been a waste as your daughter will have learnt a lot from the training, she will be well disciplined, she will be fit and healthy, she will have respect for others and learned how to work as part of a team an she will have a passion and talent, and she may use these skills in many areas of her life even if she were to give up ballet! My mother in law doesn't get the who "dance" thing and often asks me "well what if she gets into one of these schools and you have spent thousands of pounds over the years and then she decides she wants to be a vet instead" and I just say to her that I would still be happy as i am paying for the here and now and not for the future, at the moment she loves to dance and so I am happy to pay for that, if in the future she changes her mind then it won't have been a waste as she has learnt a lot and been happy whilst doing it!!

And finally I just want to add a point to the unfairness with regards to personal circumstances for the funding, one thing I find extremely unfair (for funding for JA's, not sure if same applies to MDS) is that they may offer you an allowence for other siblings but they do not offer an allowence for maintenance paid for children from a previous relationship that do not live with you unless the payments are issued via court order! I find this ridiculous as I know some people with extremely high maintenance payments as they are paying for 2+ children from a previous marriage and so their disposable income was extremely reduced and the funding wouldn't account for it!! Would be interested to know if MDS is the same?!

Sorry for long winded reply!!

[Legseleven]

At present I understand that MDS funding is available to ?all White Lodge students, ?all or the majority of Elmhurst students and some Hammond and Tring students. Is that correct? How are decisions made as to how many MDS places Hammond and Tring (and possibly Elmhurst) are allocated per year? (I realise that the answer may be - 'no-one knows'.)

 

 

Is part of this the fact that whilst Hammond and Tring allocate places after a first audition, then have a second funding audition to determine who is awarded an MDS/bursary funding, RBS and Elmhurst only allocate places after their second auditions, which are therefore not funding auditions? I confess that I'm not sure how this would be affected by the number of MDS places available, as I understood that RBS and possibly Elmhurst have all or most MDS funding - so surely it would be fairer if Hammond and Tring, with fewer MDS places to allocate, also moved onto a system where places are only offered after a second audition? That way they too have the chance to have two selection processes and there might be less of a feeling from some families that children from wealthy backgrounds, whose parents can and are prepared to fund vocational school training, have an unfair advantage at Hammond and Tring.

 

 

I am sticking my head above the parapet here, but I am also not certain why the CAT schemes offer MDS funding, whereas the likes of YoungDancersAcademy cannot. Is this the same sliding scale as for the 'Big 4' vocational lower schools or is it at a lower level because children are not boarders? Surely children whose families are prepared to pay for their regular travelling to CAT schemes and juggling their CAT and own dance school commitments with 'ordinary' schooling commitments are far more likely to be from a relatively wealthy background? Do the CAT schemes have a set number of MDS places they can offer per year and is that akin to the number of MDS places that RBS, Elmhurst, Hammond or Tring can offer? 

 

[Picturesinthefirelight]

I'm a bit confused as to what you mean here legseleven.  Are you saying that ALL places should be offered only after a second audition?  Hammond for example only invite children to finals who they wish to offer a place too, are you saying that they should invite more children to finals will then go on to get a no or are you saying that they shouldn't tell the children who will get a yes that they are a yes until after MDS places are allocated. I don't see how it gives anyone an advantage or disadvantage. 

 

Word would soon get around that if you are invited to finals then you will get a place.

 

 

At present I understand that MDS funding is available to ?all White Lodge students, ?all or the majority of Elmhurst students and some Hammond and Tring students. Is that correct? How are decisions made as to how many MDS places Hammond and Tring (and possibly Elmhurst) are allocated per year? (I realise that the answer may be - 'no-one knows'.)

 

 

Is part of this the fact that whilst Hammond and Tring allocate places after a first audition, then have a second funding audition to determine who is awarded an MDS/bursary funding, RBS and Elmhurst only allocate places after their second auditions, which are therefore not funding auditions? I confess that I'm not sure how this would be affected by the number of MDS places available, as I understood that RBS and possibly Elmhurst have all or most MDS funding - so surely it would be fairer if Hammond and Tring, with fewer MDS places to allocate, also moved onto a system where places are only offered after a second audition? That way they too have the chance to have two selection processes and there might be less of a feeling from some families that children from wealthy backgrounds, whose parents can and are prepared to fund vocational school training, have an unfair advantage at Hammond and Tring.

 

 

 

[Huddsballetmum]

 

At present I understand that MDS funding is available to ?all White Lodge students, ?all or the majority of Elmhurst students and some Hammond and Tring students. Is that correct? How are decisions made as to how many MDS places Hammond and Tring (and possibly Elmhurst) are allocated per year? (I realise that the answer may be - 'no-one knows'.)

 

 

Is part of this the fact that whilst Hammond and Tring allocate places after a first audition, then have a second funding audition to determine who is awarded an MDS/bursary funding, RBS and Elmhurst only allocate places after their second auditions, which are therefore not funding auditions? I confess that I'm not sure how this would be affected by the number of MDS places available, as I understood that RBS and possibly Elmhurst have all or most MDS funding - so surely it would be fairer if Hammond and Tring, with fewer MDS places to allocate, also moved onto a system where places are only offered after a second audition? That way they too have the chance to have two selection processes and there might be less of a feeling from some families that children from wealthy backgrounds, whose parents can and are prepared to fund vocational school training, have an unfair advantage at Hammond and Tring.

 

 

I am sticking my head above the parapet here, but I am also not certain why the CAT schemes offer MDS funding, whereas the likes of YoungDancersAcademy cannot. Is this the same sliding scale as for the 'Big 4' vocational lower schools or is it at a lower level because children are not boarders? Surely children whose families are prepared to pay for their regular travelling to CAT schemes and juggling their CAT and own dance school commitments with 'ordinary' schooling commitments are far more likely to be from a relatively wealthy background? Do the CAT schemes have a set number of MDS places they can offer per year and is that akin to the number of MDS places that RBS, Elmhurst, Hammond or Tring can offer? 

 

I'm sorry legseleven but I have to disagree with your comment on parents of children on the CAT schemes.  My DD is on the CAT scheme and gets an MDS which funds more than 70% of her fees.  If she didn't I could not afford for her to go.  I am a single parent with no support finacially or otherwise from my DD's dad and whilst I have a good job, I couldn't support the many thousand pounds per year training costs on the CAT programme.  I have had to change my working hours to accommodate her transport which means leaving for work at 6am two days per week.  Please do not assume - everyone's situation is different!!

[Picturesinthefirelight]

CAT schemes are a government initiative set up in 2004 Presumably there was some kind of tendering/application process to become part of the scheme.

 

YDA in the other hand is a private school set up in 2006. One would assume they knew that the government was not planning on increasing the number of full time MDS schools (don't forget there are several music schools already too). Hence why YDA can't offer MDS funding.

[Picturesinthefirelight]

No new full time schools have been admitted to the MDS scheme since 2002 (when the scheme changed from Music & Ballet Schools to Music & Dance Scheme)

[Pups_mum]

The other thing to bear in mind 're CATs is that apart from Northern Ballet in Leeds the others are not predominantly ballet. As I understand it the majority have a contemporary focus and i think one or two are other genres. So the young dancers applying for CATs may be totally different from those looking for places at the 4 MDS vocational schools. Full time contemporary training isn't really available til 16 at the youngest, and possibly more common at 18. I know this is a ballet forum and hence that is where most of us have our greatest interest, but we have to remember the scheme is called Music and Dance Scholarships and Dance is a much broader world. It seems only fair to me that youngsters with a passion for other genres should also have opportunities to receive funding.

[Anon2]

On the question of the auditions cost for vocational school you have to appreciate that there may be four or five members of dancing staff on the panel plus a ballet teacher leading the class. So on each audition day the school has to juggle around their current pupils who often have guest teachers as their own teacher is sat on the panel - someone has to pay for that. If they make it to finals and have a physio assessment the physios time needs paying for. Pupils at the schools have medical insurance to cover any physio they may require it is not included in the fees.

Now why some schools have such high fees for summer school applications I cannot understand, a few staff looking through the photos can't take more than a day.

[sarahw]

While I think the MDS is pretty much as fair as it could be I do agree on the lack of transparency. While I agree Tring/Hammond don't always know in advance the exact numbers of MDS they must have a rough idea and as a paying auditioning parent I would like to know the rough figure! Also I have never seen the figures published retrospectively.

 

On an aside I understood that Hammond are not recalling Y9/10 for 2nd funding auditions but will consider video evidence at same time as 7/8 are recalled. Not sure if that means Y9/10 are low priority for MDS.

[pas de chat]

While I think the MDS is pretty much as fair as it could be I do agree on the lack of transparency. While I agree Tring/Hammond don't always know in advance the exact numbers of MDS they must have a rough idea and as a paying auditioning parent I would like to know the rough figure! Also I have never seen the figures published retrospectively.

 

On an aside I understood that Hammond are not recalling Y9/10 for 2nd funding auditions but will consider video evidence at same time as 7/8 are recalled. Not sure if that means Y9/10 are low priority for MDS.

 

I have been told by the school that MDS at Hammond go to new Year 7s and the number of these is based on those that who leave in year 11 who have MDS.  If you wish to apply for MDS in any other year you can apply to a waiting list if someone leaves.  I understand why they do it so the number of entries into year 7 are kept high.  It does make sense and I like the school's transparency and approach.  Hammond also offer very good bursaries for talented children that aren't awarded MDS which is based on parental income.  Hope this helps.

[taxi4ballet]

 

How are decisions made as to how many MDS places Hammond and Tring (and possibly Elmhurst) are allocated per year? (I realise that the answer may be - 'no-one knows'.)

 

 

I know only about Tring and the information was given to me a year or two ago, so may now be different. Tring has 50 MDS places at any given time, which are spread among current students.

 

Each year, the number of new MDS places becoming available equates to the number of leavers who had MDS funding. In other words, if (say) ten MDS-funded students leave this summer they will have ten funded places to offer. 

[Vonrothbart]

I think that the fact that we have any sort of Government funding at all for dance,drama and music in the Uk is fantastic! And I feel it shouldn't be taken for granted either..

However I do feel that schools should initially award the MDS/DADA without any previous knowledge of the students financial background so that everyone is on a level playing field and funding is purely awarded on talent not financial need.But it's not just "talent" in the ballet world that kids are awarded funding for..it's ideal body shape,length of limb,feet etc etc and kids have these ideal attributes regardless of financial background

Every family is different..and have different priorities-especially when it comes to finances.

It might not seem fair that slife an afford more private lessons than others...life isn't fair..it's what you make of it and this applies throughout your entire life.

There isn't enough funding for everyone..this is a fact..there aren't enough dance contracts at the end of years of dedication,hard work and training..this is a fact.

Vocational school training is tough!! Not every child is suited to it regardless of background..not every child will stay the course..due to physical,emotional financial reasons..very few will be offered a contract at the end of years of training..but there is always something you can do dance related if you so chose or go off at a tangent and do something completely different!

Just grab every opportunity that life throws at you..some you can afford others you can't..never mind something else will come along! Don't get too hung up about those who are on high or low incomes...make the most of what you have:)

 

Don't forget bluebell, the government receive around £35 million every week from the national lottery, that's a lot of money to go round. Since the lottery began, something like 30 or so billion, yes billion has gone to football for instance, and other sports, and of course the arts has received a massive amount too. I would think a lot of the grants we thank the government for, is coming from the people, so maybe we are entitled to them.

[Lema]

Don't forget bluebell, the government receive around £35 million every week from the national lottery, that's a lot of money to go round. Since the lottery began, something like 30 or so billion, yes billion has gone to football for instance, and other sports, and of course the arts has received a massive amount too. I would think a lot of the grants we thank the government for, is coming from the people, so maybe we are entitled to them.

Hmmm maybe we should all start playing the lottery twice a week then, we may be lucky enough to have a win and if not we may have increased the amount the lottery pay to the government and in turn the government may put more of that into funding the arts and more MDS may become available, meaning more chance of our dc being able to go off to train at a vocational school!! Win win

 

Edited for typo

Edited January 8, 2016 by Lema

[Interested Parent]

My understanding based on 5 years of auditions at these schools...

 

MDS: RBS (all) and Elmhurst (most) - awarded in order of talent, not ability to pay but if lots of 'wealthy' children (for want of a better title) then more children could be taken? Not sure how this would be possible when the schools only have a finite number of beds.

 

MDS: Tring (some) and Hammond (some) - awarded in order of talent - 'pot' of government money that if more wealthy children awarded can offer more MDS. Hence both schools can only advise a rough number of MDS pre- audition and they will advise if you ask.

 

DaDa: All schools (exc RBS as continue MDS) - awarded in order of talent, one pot of money, the more wealthy children on the talent list the more offers can be made until the pot runs out - key difference being that although there is a finite number of bed or even no accommodation, children can use local to school accommodation, hostels, rented, host families.

[Picturesinthefirelight]

I don't think that's quite correct interested parent

 

MDS isnt a pot of money it's a number of awards (dada is a pot of money though awarded in that way.

[Interested Parent]

I agree that MDS is a specific number of students at RBS and Elmhurst (almost) but at Tring and Hammond a certain amount of money is available and number of MDS awardees will change. I suppose that could also be whether existing MDS awardees were leaving or being assessed out of the school. This is why Tring would advise a rough number, ie 4-6. Well they always used to.

 

My point is that an earlier poster wondered if RBS could give out more MDS if there was money left but this would be impossible if there weren't the beds to accommodate those extra children.

 

The benefit of Hammond was always the bursaries, their own extra pot that they could award if the MDS's ran out and sometimes this could work out better value for the parents than an MDS.

[Mumofthree]

Blimey it's all so complicated. As said earlier if if was a bit more transparent we'd all understand if a bit better.

[Petalviolet]

Blimey it's all so complicated. As said earlier if if was a bit more transparent we'd all understand if a bit better.

You read my mind - the more I know the less I understand :-( :-(

[Interested Parent]

Indeed. There will be several posters whose DC have gone through the auditions process and finally succeeded in gaining a big 4 place before 16. So there's always hope amongst the complicated funding processes and I sincerely believe, having come out the other side that every school does its best to be fair and to use their limited budgets for their children as best they can. You'll rarely read on here from those that didn't succeed for the simple reason that they, and their children, have probably moved on to pastures new.

 

However, during those pre16 years my DD was never offered a place. Got a finals wait list place at Elmhurst, un-funded at Tring, bursary offer we couldn't afford at Hammond so you may think that my DD came out scarred and battle worn. She didn't! She's a strong, dedicated and focused person but one that's also realistic and not at all bitter which are huge and important lessons to learn in life.

 

Children are very tough and if allowed to push towards their dreams, albeit with boundaries (too expensive, too far away) will bounce back and will be better for it.

 

Finally, the funding situation changes regularly and none of us can predict what will be in place by next year, let alone 3 or 4 years down the road so my advice would be to just go with the flow and enjoy your DC's dancing.

 

PS. My DD is now in a 6th form vocational ballet school and very happy. That's all we can ask. ((-:

[annaliesey]

 

 

... I am sticking my head above the parapet here, but I am also not certain why the CAT schemes offer MDS funding, whereas the likes of YoungDancersAcademy cannot. Is this the same sliding scale as for the 'Big 4' vocational lower schools or is it at a lower level because children are not boarders? Surely children whose families are prepared to pay for their regular travelling to CAT schemes and juggling their CAT and own dance school commitments with 'ordinary' schooling commitments are far more likely to be from a relatively wealthy background? Do the CAT schemes have a set number of MDS places they can offer per year and is that akin to the number of MDS places that RBS, Elmhurst, Hammond or Tring can offer?

We have MDS for dd on CAT scheme. The MDS can allow for travel expenses to be reclaimed plus some uniform costs. It also covers mid week ballet training with recognised teachers (ie; RAD)

 

We were told that in year 7 / age 11 the scheme follows pretty much the same syllabus as Vocational schools and is similar in dance hours for the same vocational school year.

 

There is a limit on the amount of places available.

 

It's about 60% ballet and 40% contemporary and we were/are told there is a proportion of dancers who go onto full time vocational ballet schools throughout ages 12-18 We were given a bunch of statistics at the open day but I can't remember them.

 

I personally feel our tax payers / lottery money would go a lot further with CAT schemes. I feel that all this choosing on talent argument loses meaning when a massive chunk of funds go on private school academic education and not just dance education.

 

I don't see why funds that should go on developing dance talent are channelled to financing an expensive private school education.

 

I know academic attainment is important but I don't see why MDS funding should cover this. Surely it's music and dance for a reason.

[annaliesey]

Sorry should have said that to put in context financially, Tring without funding is about £27k per annum whereas CAT scheme without funding is about £3,500 per annum.

 

So the way I look at this, in simple terms, about £23k per annum of MDS funding at Tring for example goes towards academic development 85% if assuming it costs the same as a CAT scheme to deliver dance training

 

Maybe I'm looking at this inaccurately?