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?

She won't be mixing with the likes of those from the rough end of Croydon. She will be mixing with the children of other like minded parents, some of whom will not be millionaires. And this, apparently, will make her less posh

Give over. They shouldn't over think it. Just send her where they want to.

That was my experience too, raltheraffe. It seems obvious that many parents opt for private schools because of an inexplicable fear of their kids mixing with kids from a whole variety of backgrounds. I'd respect them more if they just came right out and said so.

Oh please.
You see the mixing as an advantage, but you would not have got into Cambridge without your A grades.

Yes. I got them at a comprehensive. Is that so hard to understand...?

Yes, A grades I got from a comprehensive school. It was YOU that said fee paying is about learning, so how did I get the grades at a comprehensive? Perhaps I learnt something when I was there.

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'.

Clegg, blair and ....cant rememeber all send dc to top state school that has been found to lie and cheat to get pupils they want in.

no sincerity.

mrsmccoll there was a girl who lived near us who went to fee paying. Her parents used to hold 2 birthday parties for her. One for her school friends and one for the local rifraf. Pathetic.

Love it when mums get sarcastic because they are spending 1000s on school fees but people from comps can get into the top universities fee of charge.

That's shocking, raltheraffe. But I've seen that kind of thing too. What are parents like that so afraid of?

And then teach at them!!

No, I never said fee paying is about learning.
You read that into what I said.

I said that mixing is different from learning.
You can learn without mixing and mix without learning.

3 x A* and 10 x A grade GCSE : scary places comps

Mixing with all kinds of people and learning not to be an arse is actually a v important kind of learning.

I really can't believe that the Cameron's can't find atleast one state funded school in London that would suit their daughter. The Blair children seem to have struggled along.

Why the fuck shouldn't he send her to the school that they feel is the one best for her?

Most parents don't have the choice of virtually any state school on the uk.

Wot MacColl said.

If he is doing it as some sort of statement it doesn't impress me much. Where we live there are some very good primary schools (to which we have no access really) and most secondaries are various degrees of poor so I can't care less where his daughter goes what matters for me is that I don't have a choice at any level. Btw I really felt for Diane Abbott and it wouldn't have prejudiced me against voting for her if she was good at what she was doing.

"learning not to be an arse" is the best ever school mission statement. I will take it to our next governor's meeting. Ours is currently "we aspire to be the best" which make me want to go crazy with a machete every time I read it.

The unofficial motto of our Scout troop is "don't be a dick". But I think it's a bit ...., basic........for a school. Learning not to be an arse is much more lyrical.

The Camerons have one problem that other parents don't have - security. The children of a PM, of whatever party, are targets for terrorists etc. The security services have to be sure that they can protect them, and this might rule out some schools where the site or the routes to it can't be made sufficiently secure.

I think the Camerons said the other day when they were going round Holland Park Comprehensive that their big problem is they don't know where they'll be living in September when Nancy starts senior school. The exams for the private schools are all in January. IIRC there are exams for Lady Margaret, Grey Coat & St Marylebone, I believe all the schools have certain percentages of three ability levels. All three are church schools & single sex. St Marylebone is more music/creative than the two other schools. According to the press the Blairs used teachers from Westminster to tutor their children who were at London Oratory/Sacred Heart.

Gosh, it really isn't an either/or choice between mixing with a diverse group of people and leaving school with decent grades. It's entirely possible for kids to do extremely well at state schools and to mix with kids from a range of backgrounds. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand.

I too love the idea of "learning not to be an arse" as a school motto!

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.

98% of the students at my local comprehensive are white British. One of the independents we looked at has 40% of bits students from ethnic minority groups with quite a few who have relocated from other countries to attend school here.
The state school is not more culturally or ethnically diverse and doesn't have the necessary student mix to be considered very culturally diverse.
The independent school has around 20% of its students in receipt of a bursary so not everyone there comes from a wealthy or middle class family.
This idea that state schools encourage children to mix with a more diverse group isn't my perception based on the schools I have looked at.

It is in London.

As motherinferior says. The school our children go to is fully reflective of the very diverse area (ethnically, culturally, economically) it's located in. I always wonder why people choose to live in an area like this and are then appalled at the idea of their child going to a school that looks like their local community. Prejudice and fear is what it comes down to. And a fundamental lack of confidence in your own child.