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Its so outdated - aibu that they should stop referring to grammar school pupils as poor?

Not all pupils at private school come from hugely wealthy backgrounds and most definitely not all pupils are bright. There are a number of almost non-selective private schools.
Also class and wealth are not always related.......

MrsDevere Your question was whether anyone got in without coaching and tutoring. My answer was yes so not sure how you can say I am wrong. I agree that lots of people get tutored. And the PP's comment on there being lots of tutors ignores the fact that most who apply don't get in. Many parents spend lots of money on tutoring but their child doesn't get a place. I suspect those who spend the most actually are less likely to get in than those who have a very bright child and maybe pay for a bit of tutoring which gets them in - or the bright motivated child who doesn't need tutoring to get a place.

I went to a selective private school and my background is working class - my parents were low earners so I was given an assisted place (they paid £100 per term v £2500 per term full fees) because I passed the exam with high enough scores. It's not just middle class and/or wealthy families who choose private schools.

In terms of grammars, my main problem with them is that the children from the very backgrounds this policy is supposed to reach will not, as those really good primary schools will become oversubscribed and only those who can afford to move into the catchment areas will get a place. This will then affect the chances of those children taking the 11 plus, because they won't have had the same level of tutelage in a RI or Inadequate primary to allow them ton do comparably in the 11 plus, therefore will not be selected. It is less likely that parents whose children are eligible for FSM, for example, would be able to afford to move to an affluent area the year before primary school places are awarded.

It will just mean more places for those kids from privileged backgrounds. That is why I don't agree that this expansion of grammars is the answer.

Assisted place scheme has long gone.

I think it depends on the school. We looked into it at my old school for my DS for secondary but he wasn't that interested in the school. They had it then, 5 years ago.

I think the tutoring thing is a bit of a red herring.

All the children I know who got into grammars had masses of extra educational input, one way or another.

My nephew had some formal tutoring, but was mostly helped by being in a private primary school with tiny classes, a very academic curriculum, and a focus in year 5 on the needs of children sitting the 11+.

My friend's son got in after having an hour's extra tuition a day after school through your the whole of year 4 and 5 from his mum, who's a teacher.

Children who come from families who are very focused on education throughout primary - the ones where parents are always, in one way or another, focused on learning, sitting down for regular homework, expected to read and talk about books, taken to museums etc - this is the target market for grammars. Clever but poor children from educationally disengaged families won't get a look in.

Must have been a private school scheme. The state funded assisted place scheme was abolished by the new labour government in 1997.

lulu there are a few private schools which used their own funds to continue the assisted places scheme after govt funding stopped.

minifingerz I think the whole point of the new grammar school idea is to give the "Clever but poor children from educationally disengaged families" a look in. In contrast to the current grammar schools where I agree they don't get a look in. Hence the discussion of the "new" grammar schools having tutor proof entrance tests, targeting children on FSM etc.

Probably, Blanche. It is part of a large charitable foundation.

"I think the whole point of the new grammar school idea is to give the "Clever but poor children from educationally disengaged families" a look in"

In practice it has never worked like that, even when grammar schools were far more abundant the places were still taken by the middle classes, socio economics not ability was the key factor in selection.

" I suspect those who spend the most actually are less likely to get in"

Which goes against the research data suggesting between 40 and 50% of students have been tutored or been in private education prior to admission.

As smallfox says grammar schools helping the poorbutbright has always been a myth. If it were true that grammars helped increase social mobility counties like Kent with a full grammar school system would have higher social mobility than other parts of the country, which it demonstrably doesn't.

Well dd got into her grammar school by just doing the 6 Letts practice papers as advised by the school. She recons about a third of her form are middle class.
And I'm on low pay and tax credits. BUT the amount of funding per pupil is the lowest in the county and we're always being asked to set up DD's to help find the school. She'd get more money given to the school if she was at the local comprehensive in their swish new building.

I agree that's not how grammars have worked in the past

But IF (and it's a big if) you could make entry tests tutor proof/social background neutral... and you could make sure everyone from every background applies... then in theory you could genuinely select the inherently brightest, which would include those with no money/disengaged parents.

Having said all that, I should say I'm not a grammar school fan, even if they could make the tests "background neutral" I think they are far too blunt an instrument.

DD1 is one of the anyones who got into a grammar without being tutored. She was bought a couple of work books so she could practise each day during the school holiday before the test (approx 5-10 mins per day) because she wanted to do the 11+. I am a primary teacher so was allowed to help her occasionally but it was very much her project.

She had a guaranteed grammar place but turned it down in favour of the (excellent) comprehensive she could walk to.

"For example, making the entrance exam tutor proof, actively targeting pupils on fsm etc"

I think it has been pretty well established over decades that there is no way to make these tests "tutor-proof," and it is not just about tutoring, in any case.

Everytime a well-heeled middle class family reads to their child, listens to their child read, takes them to a museum or art gallery or stately home or concert, brings them to an extra curricular activity, bathes their child in language and stimulation, puts their child in an enriching holiday club, takes them traveling and shows them the world, they are boosting their child's academic smarts and therefore (ultimately) their ability to pass testsany kind of testsat the end of primary school.

Inequality gets baked in VERY early.

It is not just about tutoring.

Even if the state threw up its hands and starting actually funding free private tutors for poor kids (and can you imagine how much that would cost?), you would still not get even close to getting rid of the entrenched disadvantage that has built up in poor kids by the end of primary school.

Grammar schools are a scandal and the data from Kent and other places shows clearly that that they worsen outcomes for poor kids.

We need strict (but caring) academically excellent, high-expectations secondary schools (and primaries, too) for ALL kids.

Poor as used by the government always means families who qualify for tax credits/benefits. Nobody cared about the middle classes who earn above that.

From the BBC this morning
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37679722
"Fewer than half of England's grammar schools give poor pupils priority in allocating places, BBC research shows.

An analysis of the 163 grammar schools' admissions policies found 90 do not take account of a child's eligibility for free school meals.

Ministers want to ensure new selective schools take in more poor pupils."

My daughter got into grammar school - we bought a book of practice 11+ tests and she did a few of them before the real test. She wasn't at a feeder school, but the local girls' school had a reputation for not dealing with bullies and I wouldn't send her there.

My neighbour's children went to a private school that virtually promised parents they'd get their children into the grammar school. For three years they spent every Saturday morning (three hours) practising.

Imperial - your dd might just be naturally good at tests or have really good reasoning/maths skills. The problem is that parents who tutor for 11 plus tend to keep tutoring and so eventually those kids will naturally do far better than untutored kids even if they somehow did get to the same selective school. Grammar schools know this too, which is why many prefer to partner with schools in poorer areas rather than 'dilute' their brands by creating new ones there (or by sending those kids to their existing schools).

I probably would have passed the 11 plus with no tutoring--I was a little swot who read nonstop and wrote stories as a hobby ;)

And part of the reason that I was like that was because I grew up in a middle class home with all the privileges that that implies. From stately home visits to homework supervision.

Few kids with low education level parents are going to pass this test.

That's exactly why it favours socio economics rather than ability.

I think that the biggest wrong with grammar schools is that they aim for the brightest, like they are only ones deserving a better quality education