'Poor children' and private school fees

[restofthetimes]

The rhetoric surrounding creating new grammar school places emphasises helping poor, bright children succeed.

So does this mean if you can't afford private school, you are 'poor'.

Its ridiculously expensive, the middle classes are being pushed out, and only around 7% of kids go private.

Its so outdated - aibu that they should stop referring to grammar school pupils as poor?

[2014newme]

They are not referring to grammar school pupils as poor. They are saying that if grammar schools want to expand they need to do more to facilitate access for poor students I.e those from low income or no income families who don't have access to tutoring for the 11+, may lack cultural capital etc. For example, making the entrance exam tutor proof, actively targeting pupils on fsm etc

[restofthetimes]

This is just one article where they are saying exactly that grammar schools are for poor bright children.
www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/612464/Stephen-Pollard-grammar-schools-help-poor-Nicky-Morgan-sevenoaks

I've heard the argument over and over on the radio and from politicians.

I've not heard any debate about the entrance exam. I am referring to the debate about whether grammar schools should actually exist in the first place.

[2014newme]

Your question was whether grammar school pupils should be described as poor.

Whether grammar schools should exist was not your original question 🤔.

[restofthetimes]

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10802409/Grammar-schools-to-favour-poor-pupils-in-admissions.html

Oh, I have found an article where the Grammar School Heads Association is promising to introduce policies to help the poor students get in.

I still maintain if the government thinks they are failing poorer, bright children, they need to accept they are failing about 93% of all bright children (and not so bright ones too) and concentrate on everybody.

[BlancheBlue]

"Middle classes are being pushed out"

My heart bleeds

[restofthetimes]

My point it that the vast majority of people can't afford private school, so the government should admit that existing schooling options are failing the majority of children.

The rhetoric strikes me that they don't accept this.

[2014newme]

Op you make a different point with every post. 🙄

[2014newme]

Where do you get the statistics that 97% of bright children ate being failed? Are you deducing that because 7% of children go to private school they ate all bright? Far from it! Lots of fee paying schools are non selective on academic grounds. And even if all the 7% attending were brilliant, that does not mean that 93% of bright children ate being failed by their current schools. Your argument makes no sense

[minifingerz]

High achieving children from poor families are, um, high achieving. No child will get a sniff of a grammar school place, irregardless of their background UNLESS THEY ARE ALREADY ONE OF THE MOST ACADEMICALLY HIGH ACHIEVING CHILDREN IN THEIR SCHOOL.

Why are we worrying about children who are succeeding - regardless of background, when there are children leaving school with poor literacy and numeracy and unqualified for any job in a modern economy?

Why doesn't Theresa May concentrate on the children who are failing in state schools, not the ones who are succeeding?

[restofthetimes]

Theresa May has said herself that they make 'poorer children do better'.

I thought the argument was that those who can't afford private schools are poor and therefore need help to get a good education.

[BlancheBlue]

mini As talk of grammar schools appeals to Tory voters?

[arethereanyleftatall]

State school isn't failing my middle class bright children whatsoever. Their school is wonderful.

[2014newme]

Op where does it say that children who don't attend private schools are poor? You made that up 😂
David Camerons kids don't go to private schools. Are they poor? Are all children in religious schools, grammar schools, state schools poor? No. Nobody except you is making that point

[charlestonchaplin]

minifingerz Probably children who are doing well at primary school but are likely to succumb to pressure to hide their intelligence/not work hard in secondary school in order to fit in and not be bullied.

[QueenLizIII]

David Camerons kids don't go to private schools. Are they poor?

If he hadnt been PM, or in politics at all be 100% clear his children would have been in private schools.

[restofthetimes]

Exactly, 2014. Most children can't afford private school. So the rhetoric that grammar school are the best chance for poor, bright kids annoys me. They would be the best chance for almost all bright kids. And clearly, there wouldn't be enough of them for 97% of bright children.

Fully understand private schools are mostly non selective.

[sparechange]

There are several cohorts here, and you seem to be assuming there is only one.

1 group is 'poor children', which are children from poor backgrounds. As a cohort, they include those who are least socially mobile and least likely to improve their chances. Some people argue this is down to the current education system, and that grammar schools would be able to help this group.

No one is saying every child who doesn't go to a private school is poor

[mouldycheesefan]

Well then i would assume op that you support the expansion in grammar schools so that they can take all clever pupils.

[restofthetimes]

I have been under the apprehension that grammar schools are for bright kids who can't afford private schools.

Then to hear this group referred to as 'poor' children is ridiculous. Since basically, nobody can afford private schools any more.

[restofthetimes]

As for what I support - I support making all schools good enough for all pupils. Grammars create a load of argument, bureaucracy and hassle, and are out of date.

[mouldycheesefan]

It's only the op saying that all grammar school pupils are poor.

"Aibu in saying they should stop saying all grammar school pupils are poor?"
Really,..nobody is saying that except the op.

[minipie]

Poor in this context is not intended to mean "can't afford private school."

It is intended to mean "can't afford the tutoring (either paid for or parental) that has recently been necessary to get into grammars."

The point being, the proposed grammars need to be genuinely accessible to children from all incomes, not just those whose parents can afford to pay for tutoring or have a (well educated) parent at home to do it.

Private school is a complete red herring.

[mouldycheesefan]

Ahghghghgh, bangs head against wall.
Op nobody is saying grammar school pupils are poor. The prime minister is saying that grammar schools have to do more to attract children from poor families. Do you see the difference?

[Enkopkaffetak]

Chuckling at this wondering exactly what it makes our family

1 child in a grammar school
1 child in a religious school
2 in a State comprehensive.


We simply looked for the school for each child we felt would best suit their needs.