To think this is a ridiculous reason for requesting a voluntary payment

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

A school local to me has been in te local paper because it is requesting a voluntary contribution towards GCSE exams the suggested donation is £40 something pounds per exam or the average cost of a child's exams.

It's a grammar school.
The head is quoted in the paper as saying "we receive next to no pupil premium or additional learning support funds like other schools do"

Then going on to explain that because they don't have this they are on a tighter budget than other schools.

The only 'additional learning support funds' I can think of are SEN/ECHP funds and my understanding of PP funding is that if you have the kids who qualify then you get it (same as the ECHP funding).

It seams very silly that a educated headmaster would not realise that if he does not get the funding this means he does not have the kids who qualify in his school and then winge about it.

If he did have it would he use it to fund the GCSEs and then the kids who need it would not have it used for them?

Because o don't believe people really cannot put by £1 a week for ten Weeks for something that could transform their kids life.no I don't believe it!

Except it isn't going to transform their lives, peacheshoney. It's going to build their hopes up for nothing, and then they are going to be overtaken by all the kids whose circumstances enable them to be far, far better-prepared.

Do you really think that if a £10 pack of papers could transform their lives, the canny, sharp-elbowed middle classes, who with their free time, education and lack of being exhausted from shift work are probably the best-qualified (using "qualified" as a relative term) to tutor their own kids with the help of these papers, wouldn't have caught on to it?

There's a reason that tutors in London can charge £40 an hour. There's a reason that middle-class parents who hope not to pay for private school at secondary still shell out for private prep schools.

Kids from low income backgrounds are far less likely to attend a good school. Wealthy parents can buy a place at a good or outstanding school either by an expensive mortgage or private education.

Kids from low incomes are less likely to support education. There is a little in Dd's class who works really hard, but his parents aren't interested. His parents are unlikely to enter him for the 11plus never mind buy work books. The route for working class kids to get away from low expectations and poverty has long gone.

I don't mind the idea of selective schools, but I feel more care should be taken over selecting the children. Maybe educational psychologists and school reports should be considered when awarding a place. A lac child in a requires improvement school is at a massive disadvantage. Some grammars do make allowances, but not all.

Sometimes a child armed with a £10 pack of papers do succeed against all odds. They have to admired for attempting something very difficult in the face of adversity. Good luck to those who dare to risk failure. If you never take a chance then you will never know in life.

I live in Ireland and it's compulsory to pay for state exams , no matter what school you attend. It's 116 euro to sit the Leaving Cert and 109 euro to sit the Junior Cert. We also pay for all textbooks, copy books , uniforms etc, you honestly don't know how good you have it in the UK where things like that are concerned . It cost me almost 1000 euro to send my ds2 into 1st year, standard non fee paying state school.

Sometimes I think the argument goes "You have a low income so can't afford a good education for your child, but your low income means you wouldn't be interested anyway".

It's an insidious generalisation. Some of us have a low income and value education very highly.

Surely its the chid who should be assessed and not the parents. A child might be very interested in getting an education even if their parents don't care two hoots. Parents and children are seperate beings and its perfectly possible to have child with high aspirations and parents with low aspirations. Conversely there are parents who are very education minded but their rebellous teens have different ideas.

"You have a low income so can't afford a good education for your child, but your low income means you wouldn't be interested anyway"."

Actually,the problem is that having a low income means that a good education is much harder to get for your child however much you might want it then it is for so on better off. Particularly if by "good education" you mean "selective education"

I was saying why that point is wrong, not condoning it!

however much you might want it then it is for so on better off

Not sure what you're saying there?

Sorry- typo. "Than for someone better off"