Guess what proportion of MPs privately educated in each party. Go on, guess!

gawd, claig

you said the cabinet were hypocrites because they sent their dc's to grammar and private schools, whilst telling everyone else not to.

I wasn't aware they told people not to. That's what I was asking about tbh

ahundredtimes, they are worse than hypocrites. They allow the rich to get on with it sending their children to Eton and other private schools, but they want to prevent the poor and middle classes having access to excellent state grammars, while sending their own children to the best schools. It's almost as if they are in cahoots with the rich and against the majority of the working and middle class people.

"grammars are excellent state schools."

Actually, they may or may not be excellent. They are state schools that take excellent students and no others!

Thank you, Claig. I understand your point, in this sea of assumptions!

And yes, 85% of Labour MPs would seem to have been educated in state schools.

And who knows, maybe being educated in a state school would influence your thinking and values and preclude you from ever wanting to be a Tory.

WHY is everyone obsessed with Grammar Schools?

And, to Claig, following on from your point about social mobility and meritocracy (which is interesting) did you hear the discussion on R4 this morning about capitalism, Democracy and values, where someone was saying that since the polarity between rich and poor in democratic countries has increased, largely because of the super-salaries of the super-rich, citizens may well feel that a vote once every 4 years is not enough democratic involvement. That it is democracy which people feel passionate about, not Capitalism. that people will fight, or take to the streets to defend democracy, but not Capitalism - even if they believe in the capitalist system.

I think there will be a greter demand for Co-operative values, genuine stakeholding and more meaningful democracy. Which actually depends in part in investment which enables social mobility.

claig - are they hypocrites? When did anyone recently, of any political party, argue to abolish private schools?

yes grammars are excellent state schools. There are some that are as good as any private school. We need more top quality state schools, so that people don't have to pay through the nose for a good education. We know that the figures for social mobility have declined under Labour and the rich/poor gap has widened. Grammar schools were a way for the poor and middle class to rise up. Ken Clarke, David Starkey, Margaret Thatcher, David Davis and thousands of other non-toffs were helped along the way by these fantastic state schools that were the envy of the world.

sorry comprehensive 43%

Kathyjelly, good question.
The figures are roughly
private school 35%
grammar school 22%
comprehensive 45%

We have seen that many of the cabinet are hypocrites and send their own children to grammars and private schools, whilst arguing against them for everybody else's children.

No system is perfect, but I think the new policy of the Tories is a step in the right direction. The Tories haven't got the courage to really change things and create more grammars, but at least they are moving in the right direction.

Getof, whilst I agree with most if your post. It's fair to point out that the Tories seem pretty keen on the pupil premium idea and will continue with academy programme (aimed at less affluent areas).

I agree that good comps can be just as good as grammars. However, when you have such a polarised system as you have in Gloucester, you simply have 4 good schools and 5 crap ones.

Please don't try and say that under the tories all schools will achieve a wonderful level of attainment. What will happen is that the extra initiative money given to the comps will disappear, and they will end up being even more crap than they are now. The tories will concentrate on keeping the level up in grammars and good comps, and sod the sink schools.

It is also far from perfect when you have non-selective schools. For instance Cheltenham - it has one grammar (the entrance exam for this is optional), and 2 good schools and 2 rubbish ones. Selection for these is based (manily) on distance from school. The good ones are based in affluent areas, the crap ones are in the crap areas. So children from poor families will have no chance of going to one of the better schools.

God knows what the solution is. I imagien a lottery system but I ahve no idea how that works in reality.

There is far too much inequality in the education system and it is utterly abhorrent in my view.

I wanted to know about grammar schools because if, say, 70% of the state educated MPs had benefitted from grammar schools, then maybe they should consider making them more available not less.

DumpyOldWoman, I think where they were educated is revealing, because it shows us if there is real social mobility. Most of us agree that you don't need to go to a private school to be well educated. It is similar to the City in the old days before Big Bang. There used to be lots of the bowler hatted brigade who got top jobs at merchant banks because they were part of the old boy network. When the American, German, French and Swiss banks bought the merchant banks up, they busted the system wide open and created a meritocracy. They didn't care where you came from as long as you were good. That allowed for a merotocratic society which offered social mobility. Social mobility is vital for the country because it allows the best brains to receive opportunities and not be held back by what class or school they came from.

FioFio, I agree that coached children will be at an advantage.

This issue is not so much that private schools educate a large number of MPs - the issue is that state schools don't! And what that says about how we educate our brightest kids.

I can't believe that the political parties aren't all pretty keen to recruit state educated candidates.

yes but not everyone can get into grammar schools can they? what about the ones that don't? I don't think more grammar schools is much of a solution really. And they really do involve loads of coaching, it's ridiculous really.

I'd like to know what percentage went to grammar schools.

FioFio, we are cross-posting, and I agree with you about preconceptions and snobbery!

FioFio in the old days, when the MPs went to school, wasn't Grammar school simply available to the % of pupils bright enough to pass? I don't remember all this coaching when I was at school, it's a new thing. But I agree that because of the m/c coaching factors Grammars are now no longer the agent of social mobility that they once were.

But then again when Grammars were the norm, so were Secondary Modern schools - those that didn't pass the 11+ learned woodwork and domestic science. Now, in a good comp, bright children do well academically in a way they never could in a Secondary Modern because the subjects weren't taught. Children were segregated. Comps changed all that.

Slightly different angle from the one this thread has gone down, but what do you think the figures would be for newly elected MPs. A lot of the Labour MPs have been around since you could rise up from the bottom a la Prescott. How many of the newly elected MPs from any party had the same sort of rise? I get the impression it's getting harder and harder to get anywhere without the private eduction and the CV full of gap years in Peru.

I am confused.

Is this information supposed to be a comment on the wealth and/ or class of MPs, the standard of their education, or their intelligence?

Hopefully most Parliamentary candidates have been proven to have a good level of intelligence. Whether they went to a comp (and were presumably in top sets) or a Grammar is irrelevant, that was the state provision, so we are left with wealth / class. Which cannot reliably be divined by education, or determine ability to be an MP.