To think the schools should've accepted this?

[bingbangbing]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snubbed-donor-offers-his-bursaries-for-poor-white-boys-to-state-schools-5h7hzbbn9

In a way, I can see why they refused. It would take one boy of colour applying and they would be in trouble.

However, there is very definitely a problem with the attainment of white working class boys on low incomes.

I get the impression that he was almost trying to recreate the old assisted places scheme on a small scale.

Ideally, state schools would all be really good and private schools totally unnecessary. Sadly that isn't the case.

I have a son and I'm worried for his future in the local schools.

"poor white boys" ? couldn't read the article as it was behind a paywall, but why should poor white boys be treated better than poor white girls, or poor children of colour?

I’m not a subscriber so could only read the first two paragraphs, but I think the schools were right to decline.

Inequality won’t defeat inequality.

poor white girls

They’re boys schools - for info only but I agree with you re specifying a race

Is it Oxford or Cambridge that have accepted money from Stormzy to set up scholarships for disadvantaged black boys?
Specifically one ethnicity is a bit controversial in any case but when it’s such a traditionally under represented group at Uni as young black men I can see what that would be more acceptable than specifying for white boys

@LittleBearPad I was thinking more of a general "don't they all need help" kind of way

Because their attainment is worse than poor white girls and poor children of colour.

It's not 'better' treatment so much as wondering why this is.

Attainment should be similar across all groups. All children should fullfill their potential.

Something is wrong. Not sure if this is the way to fix it though

@QueenOfTheFae white working class boys underachieve more than any other group, so I would imagine they are being targeted for improvement.

I agree with them refusing however I think it should be the same for any scholarship that is colour , culture or religion specific. If any school / university has excepted money for any of these then they should accept one for white only too.

white working class boys underachieve more than any other group, so I would imagine they are being targeted for improvement.

Why? Why are they underachieving?

This is political, not really based in common sense or fairness. It is true that attainment is lower in the population of deprived white boys than in any other group (from memory). But in the broader political and social context, excluding non-white children from a scholarship would be unacceptable.

There are scholarships which exclude white children though.

It's a tough one this.

Why? Why are they underachieving?

It’s culture. It’s parents not respecting education enough to discipline their kids to work hard and do as they are asked. And that is linked to underlying factors like poverty and low aspiration.

There are scholarships which exclude white children though.

There are, but that is because of the broader social issue of racism.

@phoenixrosehere I'm not entirely sure but it's related to how much the group values education and how boys are more vulnerable to gangs/criminal activity etc which pull them away from their education.

If they'd accepted the cash they would have been crucified. Better to be criticised for political correctness than racism.

The way around this is to look at the demographics of areas and restrict it to certain postcodes. You'd still have a degree of mixed ethnicity anywhere, but you might get the overall targeting you want.

I’m of two minds on this. It pissed me off a bit when I first heard it but then with further thought and looking into it, if schemes like this are there and designed to help girls or people from other races, why shouldn’t he be allowed to do the same for poorer white boys? I’m not sure though, I would need to read more into it.

@BlaueLagune But aren’t there similar schemes to help poorer black people? Such as Stormzy’s as mentioned above? So if one is allowed, why isn’t the other?

I may be misinformed though so feel free to correct me

I can't see those public schools accepting poor white boys who have already failed exams and underachieved anyway. They're not going to risk their exam results on accepting a couple of boys who are already disengaged from education and just hope they'll turn it around. The money would end up being spent on those in that demographic that have already overachieved. As it is for scholarships for ethnic minorities - clever, hardworking students. It's not going to change the attainment for the whole group, just a few who have already performed above expectations (as Stromzy's scholarships does).

I think the money would be better spent identifying and rectifying the reasons behind such low attainment at the earliest age possible.

Either all scholarships have to be open to everyone, or we have to allow specific scholarships for all groups. It’s not ok to say women can have special opportunities but men can’t, there can be scholarships for black people but not for white people, etc.

Hmmm, this on the face of it is a tricky one.

I would say there has been 100s of years of racism, incl slavery, which has made such a significant impact, even today, that means Stormzy feels that young black men need financial backing from his scholarship to access education in particular at Cambridge. Just because of their skin colour, not their background AIUI.

Whereas the young, poor, white boys have not had that. What we do have is white society putting these white boys down, an inverse snobbery. It's not skin colour or racism, that's holding them back, but family (lack of) expectations.

Therefore I think the money could be spent addressing that, and challenging why some white British parents feel uncomfortable supporting their child to do well academically.

White students already disproportionately get scholarships and aid at university. Lots of scholarships unintentionally exclude people of colour and the stormzy one was supposed yo address that partially (that and that Cambridge has very few black british students).

I'll give you an example of the unintentional structural racism in scholarships, a friend's child got significant support from one at Oxford, but yhe criteria to apply was that you had to be at a catholic school in county Durham to be eligible.

The schools could accept this if they want, I doubt it is down to being seen as racist.

I understand why he's targeted this group, they are the most underperforming group as I understand it, but I think the sticky issue is it's not directly because they are white, is it not a wider social issue? Whereas there are decades of ingrained societal racism as to why other races have faced disadvantage and been strategically targeted?

Actually it looks like he’s targeted that group because they’re in the same situation he was. He was a poor white boy who got a scholarship and he wants to pay it forward. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

I couldn't read the article because not a subscriber.

I don't have a problem with scholarships/busaries which target a specific demographic. There's plenty of university funding which specifies the Christian denomination the recipient must belong to, or for children of parents who have a specific profession, or are citizens of certain countries. These have all been set up as legacies by particular individuals who want to benefit people from their own community who wouldn't otherwise have the same chances.

However, I do wonder how such things can be judged and applied fairly. Race specifically is a difficult one. How white or black do you have to be to qualify? How many grandparents from one race, how many generations in the country, what sort of white or black? It would be very hard to administer well.

How do the poor white boys get on once they're adults? Do they manage to get higher paying/higher status jobs and careers than their female or black peers?