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Its so outdated - aibu that they should stop referring to grammar school pupils as poor?

Think about why grammar schools were introduced for a moment.....

Well by the op definition you are poor. As no children in a private school.

"Poor" generally refers to children who receive free school meals which is less than £16K. Which is obviously more or less poor depending on where you live in the UK.

For a single parent, 2 child household that would be the bottom 10% of earners.

I thought grammars intended to provide private school standard education to those who couldn't afford private school.

Perhaps I'm wrong in that.

restof
Research by the Sutton Trust has shown that Grammar Schools are disproportionately filled by children who are from a more middle class demographic even if the demographic around the school is less middle class.
"Research into grammar schools admissions reveals that that 2.7% of entrants to grammar schools are entitled to free school meals, whereas 12.7% of entrants come from outside the state sector, largely from independent schools."
www.suttontrust.com/researcharchive/poor-grammar-entry-grammar-schools-disadvantaged-pupils-england/

It could be argued grammar schools are no really longer engines of social mobility but more a way of entrenching privilege. In order for grammar schools to allow social mobility again then they have to have an intake that is more representative of the local community, including more "poor" children.

Thanks Chazs. That's not really what I'm getting at. T May hasn't been banging on about letting more poor into grammar schools. She's been saying they are for the poor. I thought.

How come there was more social mobility in the 50s and 60s then? Professions and so called "top jobs" are more likely to be filled by people who have gone to private school. How is this fair?

Op, Theresa May is not saying that. Only you are saying that.

news.sky.com/story/britains-top-jobs-dominated-by-private-schools-10391750

MrsDevere asks if anyone gets into grammar school without tutoring and coaching. My DD got in without any paid for tutoring but did do lots of practice at home with the occasional bit of help from us. I doubt anyone gets in without some practising and home encouragement. Sime others at my DD's grammar didn't have tutoring but all had encouragement at home. There is a high proportion of children there whose parents or grandparents were immigrants who are not wealthy (but not necessarily poor) but who have aspirations for their children that many others lack which in my opinion is often the issue with children who do badly at school - though of course there are also many other reasons.

And to the PP who suggested grammars are for those who can't afford private - we could have afforded it but chose not to send them as I think that children at private schools are too sheltered from the real world - though many of you probably say the same about grammars. But DD chose a grammar and managed to get in. DS might be able to get in but has chosen not to.

I think the idea of grammar schools being good for 'poor, bright' kids used to be true once upon a time, before the tutoring thing took hold.

And maybe it does still work that way outside the SE. Eg, DD's boyfriend comes from Lincolnshire, where they still have the grammar system. Him and his siblings got into the grammar without any tutoring, and he says he didn't know anyone who did have tutoring to pass.

I still don't agree with it though, it's great for those who pass, but what about all the others? And it's a shame for non-grammar secondary schools to be missing their brightest kids. They may not even be the brightest anyway, as it's just a snapshot test done on one day in year 6, when they could be having an off-day or whatever.

I think you need to give your head a wobble OP - no one is saying grammars are for the poor kids

Everyone is saying grammars should not exclude on the basis of income, that they should include poor kids (i.e. Benefit dependent)!who cannot access tutors etc.

restof
Actually she has been banging on about letting more poor into grammar schools not that they are for the poor.

www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/theresa-may-new-grammar-schools-must-genuinely-reach-out-poorer

"Mrs May went on: "We'll be saying to grammar schools and people who want to set up new selective schools, actually, if you're doing that, we will want you to show that you're genuinely reaching out across society in giving those opportunities to young people and also that you're ensuring..."

Mr Marr intervened to ask Mrs May if she was suggesting targets for those children receiving free school meals - a nod to those from poorer backgrounds - and developing new feeder schools.

She replied: "It could mean a variety of things, Andrew, that's the point.

"We're consulting at the moment as to the best approach in this but it will be about ensuring that when selective schools are expanding or being set up that they are reaching out, that they are ensuring the quality of education throughout the system."

It all seems antiquated to me anyway, coming from a county where there's been no grammars for over 50 years.

You seem to have a very idealised vision of what private education is like and assume it's better then state provision??? And come across pretty bitter? Struggling to understand what's bugging you in the whole debate.

Op I think you're getting a bit worked up over semantics. The fact is that private schools are fee paying, meaning that those who can afford it are very well off. It doesn't mean that all those who can't afford it are 'poor', but the average wage earner of the parents of kids in a comp school compared to those in a public one are probably very different.

Not every kid who goes to private school has incredibly rich parents. There are children from lower middle class who attend private school because their parents sacrifice a lot of other luxuries to ensure it. The best thing that ever happened to private schools were grammar schools closing, as it did increase private school numbers.

Obviously there are plenty of middle class earners who have decided they can't afford to send their children to private school who would benefit from the introduction of grammar schools. The point tm is making is that it is those at the bottom, no matter the bonus's or promotions or saving their parents make or receive, who could never feasibly pay for private school. Regardless of whether you think grammar schools will help social mobility (personally I'm not convinced yet) that is the argument currently being presented.

7% of kids go private at Primary school, this increases further at secondary.

Strangely 12.5 percent of students in a grammar were in a private primary/prep school at age 10.

Ps The whole 'poor' thing is probably just PR following Brexit and why people voted. This sort of spin would be put on it to make Tories seem to care about the underdogs..

Do any children get into grammar without tutoring and coaching?

I did a little survey a few weeks back of MN parents with children at grammar schools.Almost 70% their child had not had any paid for help, but most said their child had practised 11+ papers at home had practised 11+ papers.

I wouldn't trust MN on that one. Tutoring for grammars is something a lot of peoplewouldn't admit to.

The information from schools reveals for more than that 30% figure.

If they bring Grammar schools back, they will just prinmmarily be full of Pushy parents kids, who could afford private but are looking for a 'private education' on an economy budget.

I really don't like the idea that there will be some state schools with much better provision than others. If Grammar school standard is so good, they should want to provide that standard to every child, not just the ones that pass certain exams.

I went to a Grammar school in the 60s and there was only one child out of a year of 200 pupils with a working class accent.

I wouldn't trust MN on that one. Tutoring for grammars is something a lot of peoplewouldn't admit to.
why on earth would people lie on an anonymous forum?

Because they would lie, the figures from the schools work out at between 40-50% of children were either coached at a private primary/prep or had some kind of tuition.

30% sounds way too small, which if you take off the private school children comes down to 18% or so of kids getting tuition.

There's an awful lot of tutoring for grammars advertised, and an awful lot of private tutors working on those 18%if that's the case.