Correlation between funding and success

[Jellybeans]

Out of the schools that take funded and unfunded pupils - i.e. Tring, Hammond and, to a lesser extent, Elmhurst, are the funded pupils ultimately more successful? It would be interesting to know this as it would perhaps help to understand if good teaching can have an equally beneficial effect on those deemed to meet the criteria for funding and those who don't!

[Nana Lily]

Interesting topic jellybeans, though important to remember that unfunded pupils aren't necessarily less gifted. In many cases they don't qualify for funding as the family income is too high.

 

NL

[afab]

Or else like our DDs because, even though British, they live abroad...

[Anna C]

And at Tring and Hammond there are such a relatively small number of funded places to give that there are undoubtedly equally talented children who don't get funding.

[Jellybeans]

OK, I'll try and address all these points and see if we can still come up with a sensible comparison!!

 

In general, how does the success of non- funded British students compare with the success of funded ones? I would have thought that those that are excluded from funding only on financial grounds are few and far between but let us also assume that those on non funded places were not offered funding in the first place!

 

As far as Tring and Hammond goes, the funding available will go to those thought to have the most potential but it is at these schools that the comparison can most easily be made. because of the way the audition process works there, there will be children there who were not offered funding or, in the case of Tring, they may not even have been offered the opportunity to audition for funding - but who are able to afford to take up a place. Is the good teaching that they go on to receive enough to bring them up to the same level as those that were selected for funding?

[tutoo2much]

I can't answer your question exactly, but I remembering reading on the old ballet.co.uk board about children who have had unfunded places at Hammond and Tring going on to audition and get funded places for Elmhurst. So that seems to indicate that they had had good training. But perhaps they hadn't auditioned at Elmhurst in the first place.

[KathyG]

When we did the auditions there was a child whose ability was not as good as the rest who took an unfunded place and now is as good as the rest of their year. The training obviously suited them.

[taxi4ballet]

There was a fantastic improvement in my DD after one week at Easter school - can't help wondering what she'd be like if we could afford to pay for her to go full-time.

[tomuchtallent]

Im the same as afab.

We dont qualify for MDS ect so we couldnt even be offered a funding audition.I think maybe we could get a scholarship.

Im sure the school has to keep up a good reputation and everyone does have to audition.And yes the best students get the funding,thats the way it has always been,so they will be better than the rest.

I did phone one the schools and told them that i might be coming back to the UK,they said my dd could audition any time and join straight away!I I think they assumed i was a full paying customer!!!

[2dancersmum]

I would have thought that funded or non funded would have litlte or no correlation to going onto be more successful. There are too many factors to take into account, not the least the fact that the funding goes to those 'thought to have the most potential'. Regardless of the ages of the children their dancing backgrounds will be very different and once at the school with access to good quality daily training some children will improve far more rapidly than others. I'm sure if funding was reassessed on potential etc every year then the recipients would vary also. Add in factors like growth, puberty, injuries, who is prepared to really work hard and even the basic of the child changing their mind about what they want to do or achieve and the picture becomes even more complex.

Basically I don't think anything is predicatable.