to wonder why David Cameron is sending his daughter to a state secondary school?

[sexonthebeach]

He went to Eton and his wife went to an exclusive private school. Both have done brilliantly well, so why are they sending their daughter to a state school, particularly as most London state schools are apparently a bit rough.

On the one hand, I applaud them, as they are showing support for the state sector, and of course the standards should be sufficiently high that no parent should feel they have to spend £££s on opting out. On the other hand, are they just using their child for their political agenda.

Miriam Clegg has also made similar comments ie that their DC will not be educated privately, as why would you pay so much for the privilege of your DC to take their maths exam in a tailcoat? For some reason, Miriam comes over as more sincere, but I still can't help wondering if this is part of the Cleggs' political agenda, given that Nick went to a top 'public school'. Miriam, not being British, probably can't understand why the Brits want to send their kids away to boarding school, in any event, instead of bringing them up yourself - it seems to be something peculiarly British, going back centuries to the days when the noble families would send their children to the households of other noble families to be brought up.

Anyway, I've digressed. Do you think the Camerons are being responsible parents or being unreasonable to use their child to further their political agenda?

Tunip, exactly.

He's damned either way isn't he. Why the fuck shouldn't he send her to the school that they feel is the one best for her? Isn't that what normal parents do? If they meet the criteria then it's nobody's business but their own.

And I'm pretty sure they're looking at LMS and not GCH. Given that children in London are able to attend secondary schools well across the city from their Boroughs, I'm not sure people bitching about catchment have a clue about how it works in London. Local to us, my DS's friends (all went to same primary) now attend state secondaries in Lambeth, K&C, H&F, Wandsworth, Kingston, Richmond, Croydon and Camden.

How do they know which school they are going to when it's another 58 or 6 months til allocations are made?

I'm guessing they will have priority due to exceptional social reasons. I could be wrong......

most London state schools are apparently a bit rough
Goading, much?

Hmm, sad to see Britain is still so obsessed with class.... so boring

"The papers keep writing that [my wife, Samantha] comes from a very blue-blooded background", but "she is actually very unconventional. She went to a day school."

So, the majority of us are 'unconventional' by Cameron's standards.

His daughter will thank him in the future if she decides she wants a political career. Also, since state school pupils routinely outperform equivalently qualified privately educated pupils at university, he is making a good choice educationally.

"Grammar schools are better academically than independants"

Nonsense!

Some grammar schools may be better than some independent schools.
Some independent schools may be better than some grammar schools.
Not all grammar schools are better than all independent schools. It is nonsense to state that they are.

Eureka!

There is an article in the Evening Standard tonight which states that the reasons that the Camerons want to send their daughter to a state school is so that she will have 'social fluidity'.

Apparently, the 'mannerisms of the posh or entitled can grate or isolate' and the 'next generation of the truly successful will be those who can talk to the rest of the country and those beyond it, without summing up images of trust funds and labradors'.

Makes perfect sense to me. I underestimated the Camerons - they are ahead of the game!

""she is actually very unconventional. She went to a day school."

Abbie, my comments about London state schools were not based upon personal knowledge or experience, but from relations' experience who live there. I certainly didn't mean to offend anybody.

Diane Abbott campaigned to ban fee paying schools for all her career, until she sent her son to one.
Ruth Kelly sent her children private and Tristram Hunt (shadow education minister) plans to.
Tony Blair was the first prime minister (of any hue) to send his children to state school.

That quote about SamCam being unconventional is pure gold

That is exactly what I was saying. State schools are better than fee paying because they encourage children to mix with a more diverse group.

poster caroldecker
Harriett harperson sent her child to a grammar

I would hazard a guess many of those labour knows have private health care as well it's all good for the goose but not good for the gander with labour I often find a lot of their sandal wearing followers are the same

Add message | Report | Message poster raltheraffe Mon 20-Oct-14 20:02:25
That is exactly what I was saying. State schools are better than fee paying because they encourage children to mix with a more diverse group.

Don't agree with that their is no parent who will say well they failed their exams know fuck all but at least they have friends from a diverse group

You '^didn't mean to offend anybody?'

How the hell were we supposed to take your sweeping statement? Based on the experience of 'relations'?

Presumably because it's a good school?

Also do you think he enjoyed boarding at Eton?

raltheraffe Mon 20-Oct-14 20:02:25
That is exactly what I was saying. State schools are better than fee paying because they encourage children to mix with a more diverse group.

That's a rather bizarre statement.
Mixing is all good and lovely and muesli sharingly beautiful,but learning something entirely different.

Hold on to your hats: there are comprehensive schools - even in awful scary London - where kids mix with each other AND learn stuff. They even pass exams and go to top universities. I know, crazy shit!

my comments about London state schools were not based upon personal knowledge or experience, but from relations' experience who live there. I certainly didn't mean to offend anybody

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it!

People make the most appallingly sweeping statements about London, in a way that those of us who live in London would hesitate to make about elsewhere in the country - and then act astonished that anyone is offended by the offensive thing they said.

People make the most appallingly sweeping statements about London, in a way that those of us who live in London would hesitate to make about elsewhere in the country - and then act astonished that anyone is offended by the offensive thing they said.

The comments about London schools were silly. But I see plenty of stupid comments on here about the rest of the country from people who live in London. It goes both ways.

I'm not sure how one would generalise about not-London schools any more than anyone can generalise about London ones - schools vary within the same area! (Does this really need to be pointed out?)

Otillia I got in Cambridge from a comprehensive and I had the advantage that I had mixed with a more diverse group of people, something I actually value more than all the A grades.
I taught at Cambridge and found some of the fee paying students had been so spoon fed information they had never been taught to study on their own initiative and so did badly in the exams.