How do vocal socialists justify private school?

[EachandEveryone]

I often think it about gobby musicians and lately I’ve noticed friends who vehemently believe in equal opportunities for all sending their little ones to private school even though there are outstanding primary schools nearby. For the sporting opportunities was the reason. I have never

People don’t get counted in the statistics if they moved to be in the catchment of a good state school instead of just accepting the nearest one or not factoring it in their housing choice.

That's interesting fragalino.

Diane Abbott's son went to the City of London School, I've known a few (my age and younger) who went there. It's a day school, I've no idea what it's like now but some years ago they were generous with scholarships and bursaries and had many pupils who had an assisted place.

The press made so much out of that story and City of London is a good school - at least Diane's son came home every day after school and was well taught.

As I said much depends on the child.

A cousin was moved from abroad and chucked into a hard rough comp in very poor part of the UK. Her socialist red dad pulled her out and put her into very good private school.
I'm glad he did. I'm glad he didn't make her suffer in an alien environment and put her somewhere where she flourished and made life long friends..

She isn't his, she doesn't belong to him but he has the power to make her childhood happier to show her over all else, love.

The parent that loves you and puts you first. Rather than uses you and slays you, the meek lamb on the altar of thier sword.

Apparently City is incredibly hard to get into?

It does not matter what your political views are, you want the best for your children. If the local school is crap, you might reasonably be unwilling to sacrifice your child on a principle. Just because someone is a socialist does not mean they are able to turn a crap school into a good one; so if they want to be a good parent they have to find an alternative.

An interesting comparison is that I can't think of any scandals with Welsh politicians sending their DC to either private or grammar school - despite the fact that Welsh schools are definitely worse results wise on the average than English schools. Not sure what that says...

The Oratory is only selective if you believe-as I do- that faith schools are selective.

No it was told off for putting poor catholic at disadvantage over richer ones like Blair, Harriet harmen, clegg etc

Well none of the maintained schools catered for my sons special needs and took a look at his ehcp and said 'cant meet needs'. He then spent 1 year recieving no education at all. the only school that was prepared to take him on is a private special school which the LA pay for. So its that or nothing. I would prefer the state to have catered for the 8000 children in the uk awaiting specialist provision but they havent and as my choice is NO education at all or private it sat just fine with my morals. I obviously still camapaugn and libby fir the state to increase specialist provision and SEND funding.

Mishappening I agree but if I felt that way I wouldn't become an mp and preach to others.

I would stay out of politics.

No it was told off for putting poor catholic at disadvantage over richer ones like Blair, Harriet harmen, clegg etc”

Like all faith schools.

Not that I have the money for it, but I would consider it because I honestly believe the curriculum offered at my local private school is better than my catchment secondary school.

As a centre left teacher I'm conflicted on it, but I have an ideological objection to some of what's going on in some state schools.

I'm a 'vocal' socialist. One of my children went to an independent school on a bursary. In the main because the state primary were using a year six child to hold spelling lessons for others. Said child was mine. Said child is also autistic.
It doesn't mean that I can't want the system to be improved for others, for opportunities to be offered to those that need it. For an education system that is fair and free for all. Wanting equity is not hypocrisy. My other children went to state school because that was what suited them.
Oh, and as for slagging off Diane Abbot, take a look at her reasoning too, knee jerk reactions are unpleasant and unwarranted.

The overwhelming majority of my friends broadly share my values, that’s all.

I know I shouldn't bite, because you do enjoy being disingenuous on a number of threads, but I don't restrict my friendship group to those who vote the same way I do. Perhaps you do, but I think it takes all sorts to make the world go round. I don't care who my friends vote for, or where they send their children to school; what's important to me is that they are a good friend.

Bertrand the oratory was specifically told off.

It was major news at the time because of Blair and clegg dc attending.

Absolutely no idea OP. It actually infuriates the shit out of me.

“Bertrand the oratory was specifically told off.”

Good. I wish they all were. More to the point I wish the telling off led some sort of change. Faith schools are all potentially back door selective.

“but I don't restrict my friendship group to those who vote the same way”

I don’t specifically either. and I have friends who vote differently to me. But I don’t think I would want to be friends with anyone who was completely hypocritical. And left wing private school parents would would fit into that category. Perfectly prepared to be (and am) friends with right wing private school parents if they are nice people and food friends.

Our labour politician friends staunchly send their dd to their local central
London primary. They admit to cringing when she recounts her holidays to her class most of whom have never had a holiday abroad..

How do I justify it? The private school is actually cheaper than the local state school plus wrap around care, as wrap around is included in the cost. That is the ONLY reason we chose private over state (both outstanding, both nice little communities) would actually have preferred the local state school for several reasons, but couldn't justify the additional expense.

Now I wouldn't say Diane Abbott has taken good schooling away from anyone.

Only because the electorate has so far wisely kept her faction away from the levers of power...

Socialism does not mean expecting everyone to have equal wealth, only that those who are wealthier pay more towards the common good than those who are not.

If you accept that even a socialist has a right to use their skills and talents to accrue wealth then you have to accept that it is ok to be a wealthy socialist, so long as none of that wealth was accrued by dodging taxes.

A socialist might well want to vote for a party that would increase taxes and make all schools well resourced but the truth is that such a party has not yet managed to be elected and retain power sufficiently long to fix the state education system.

That being the case, a socialist could choose to give all their wealth to a charity that strives to improve education outcomes for as many as possible, and send their child to an inadequate state school on principle, or they might spend the money on buying a home in the catchment of a less-inadequate state school, or they might just spend their money on other luxuries, or they might spend their money on upgrading the educational experience of their children beyond what the average taxpayer is willing to fund for the state sector.

I honestly can't see a moral imperative why any of these options should be chosen or rejected. They all seem valid to me. No one wealthy kid going to a comp is going to have a beneficial effect on anyone else's outcomes. Actually funding state schools adequately would take a massive cultural shift in the levels of tax the country is willing to vote in favour of and if you can't see the socialist revolution happening before your child reaches the age for schooling decisions then you have to base your choice on the real world not some imaginary utopia.

I do wonder whether those asking questions like the OP maybe can't get their head around the idea that one human might simultaneously be empathic enough to their fellow humans to believe in socialist principles and also clever we enough and talented enough to earn over £50kpa whilst also being modest enough in their lifestyle expectations to be able to live on £30kpa and so have money left over to be able to make such choices.

I also wonder why socialists who choose to buy private dental treatment or private medical care never get to bear the brunt of this kind of criticism?

I have a friend who is an ardent Corbyn fan, constantly posting about supporting the NHS, pay rises for the public sector, food banks, everything else the socialists love to bang on about.

Her daughter is in private school. But that's OK, because she's there on a part scholarship and none of the local schools were suitable.

Because until the playing field is equal, they will pay for the advantage
You can believe in equal opportunity/education for all, but the fact is, it’s not there.

But otra I thought putting dc in awful schools would turn off the school around? Apparently pushy middle class dp are supposed to raise schools up