To marvel at privately educated Keir Starmer's hypocrisy?

[Bursarysadness]

Both Kier Starmer and his wife are privately educated. Kier's senior school converted into a private school in the second year of his attendance and he has received a generous full bursary up until his A levels. He has built his life and his success on this education, supported to the end by the bursary funded by the same schools and parents he is now trying to destroy. It pains me as my children receive 50% bursaries from a brilliant local school. We've worked incredibly hard to cover the remaining 50% but it has been worth it, seeing how my children blossomed. We had a very different experience in their primary state schools, including bullying and racism. We don't live in a great area. We have just been told that the school will probably reduce all their bursaries to be able to lower the fees for the non bursary parents who are now struggling because of the VAT introduction. I don't know what the future for my children is now and they have so many close friends where they are. They are both academically brilliant and work very hard - hence the bursaries were granted. I feel so depressed that, from what is becoming obvious, they won't be able to benefit from the generosity of bursaries the same way Kier Starmer did when he was a child ..

I don't think anyone wants her to speak Spanish specifically? I would also want our "leaders" to be formally educated to some minimum standard.

You know nothing about me but if you did you'd know I have two children with SEND. I know very well that state schools are underfunded in this area. State schools are underfunded in all areas but particularly this. Surely it is better to build resources so that they are accessible for all and not just the few who can afford it.

So, as a fellow SEN parent, you appreciate what I deal with and what my children would go through if they had to change their environment and move schools we've struggled to settle them into? And you think it would be OK? Just because you can't afford it? We can just about afford it as it is. Not with 20% on top, no

And since as a parent of children with SEN - you would know that all children with SEN have different needs. I have twins with adhd - both got into a brilliant local state school and my son is thriving there. But we had to remove our daughter from the state school system as she was drowning and becoming a school refuser.

Its brilliant your Sen kids are doing great in the state school system - but naive of you to think because your kids are ok everyone else’s will be.

and of course we all want our state schools to improve provision for Sen kids - but realistically it is unlikely a state school system will provide smaller class sizes for high functioning Sen kids with sensory overload symptoms. And it also won’t happen in a time frame for our children - so you want a few private school parents to pay for a system of improved Sen their kids won’t be accessing? Why should not society pay for this rather than just a few?

Surely that’s obvious. Why are you being so obtuse?

@senmama007 "I don't think anyone wants her to speak Spanish specifically? I would also want our "leaders" to be formally educated to some minimum standard"

Someone did mention languages. And you would reject Rayner with her staggering wealth of real life knowledge and experience in favour of someone with A levels?

@Woww2 I think that those who can pay to better society as a whole should. So yes those who can afford it (of whom I am one) should be taxed more. Improving the lot of those who have not benefits those who have in the long term. It pulls society up not brings it down.

I know that change can take a while but you have to start somewhere.

I believe that if those who have influence do not have a direct stake in something as fundamental as education than change is non existent.

I have seen the benefit that the 'pointy elbow' parent has on improving the lot for all. This is particularly true in the area of SEND provision (for those students for whom it is appropriate) in mainstream school.

I don't care where my politicians are educated as long as they share my concerns and desire for change.

He wasn't a "child". When he was 16, he was politically active. 16yos have a decent say in the matter of 6th form. He remained at the school, despite it having become private and despite his parents having named him after the first Labour MP. Hypocrites, him, his parents - and his wife. They've now got a 2 million quid house in a nice state catchment for their own kids. Alright for some.

My granny was a die hard labour voter/socialist and absolutely would have exited her kids from a school at 16 had it become private. It would have been abhorrent to her.

I have a child with SEN and mainstream is not working well but we can’t afford private school full stop. We work incredibly hard as well.

Great that we are now judging our politicians on their behaviour as teenagers. Farage, Johnson and Sunak won't come out well. And, to be clear, I'm not a Corbyista, but his worst enemy can't say he hasn't been consistent in his attitudes for pushing 70 years!

Kier's senior school converted into a private school in the second year of his attendance and he has received a generous full bursary up until his A levels.

That is simply untrue.

He passed the 11+ and went to a grammar school which became a fee-paying school while he was there.
Pupils in his year continued as grammar school pupils and he received a bursary when he went into the VIth form, which is fair enough. Would you have preferred he and others did not and were told to go elsewhere?

It was hardly his or his parents' fault that the school became fee-paying after he'd passed the 11+ to gain a place there.

But grammar schools were and are still state schools unless anyone had/has to pay to attend them. Being a selective school isn’t necessarily the same as being a "non-state" (i.e. private) school.

He quite literally was a 'child'. My God the barrel scraping is desperate.

@ittakes2 I understand what you are saying, but you shouldn't have to move to a private school because of Sen needs in the first place. Extra support should be available at all schools. And if this extra tax helps kids with Sen needs in the future to remain in state schools, then this tax is a good thing. If this law had come in earlier, you wouldn't have to pay any tuition fees for your daughter at all.

@but

This tax will raise an absolute pittance. Every other school might get funding for one teacher per year. That is nothing. Absolutely nothing. As a parent of a child with SEN you at first try to get the state school to meet your child’s very simple needs (a calm environment) and you try and you try with your pointy elbows but in the end you realise that getting a school to provide this is actually more difficult than moving mount Everest. And you give up and go private or you home school.

It would have been unfair to move Starmer from his school into a different 6th form so he got a bursary...? But it's not unfair to move my children with SEND to a different school and possibly mid year...?

It's also not their fault that the legislation has changed half way through their education? And not their parents ' fault?

So, following your reasoning, this legislation should apply to new parents entering the private system but not the existing parents and children?

Yawn.

I'm more worried about the insane cost of putting my children through university. They're doing really well at secondary school (not fee paying ones) and will get good GCSEs and A-levels, but how the hell you're meant to fork out for two grown adults living in their own accomodation on top of paying your own mortgage, I don't know. I don't want them to start their working lives at least £60K in debt either.

What do the "he's a hypocrite" people
suggest he should do/should have done? Answers not requiring a Time Machine or not proposing to his wife, please...

But your post is not about the importance of education generally. It is specifically about the education of our politicians. Nowhere have I said education is unimportant. On the contrary, I believe access to high quality education for all children is vital to the success and stability of our society. I expect my doctor to understand Medicine, I want to drive over bridges designed by qualified civil engineers, and I want all our children to be taught by teachers with a thorough understanding of their subject.
I absolutely agree that skills of analysis, evaluation etc are required by politicians. The formal education system worked for me, and I was fortunate to be able to attend university, where to an extent these skills were taught. But they can be developed in other environments. I have learned more in these areas over the years through reading and through discussion with others whose views differ from my own. I also agree historical, geographical and cultural understanding are vital. Unless you study a degree specific to these areas, however, such understanding is the result of intellectual curiosity - a quality not limited to the classroom or lecture hall - and through actively engaging with people with varying views and life experiences.
And as has been said above, Angela Rayner combined parenting with returning to college. Are we making judgements now on what constitutes acceptable education?

Cuba is a communist state and has a great (free) education system. Many Cubans train to be doctors etc but then leave to work in other countries, where their Cuban degrees are accepted.

And I presume you have explained to your children that Labour do not hate them and explained why this is happening?

It sounds like the kids in this scenario are about 6 years old and don't understand why a fair school system in this country, and paying the correct amount of tax, benefits everyone.

That is ridiculous. I can just imagine it.
"No, Mum and Dad, I am not going to stay at this school where I am doing very well, where my friends are, and which has cost you nothing and will continue to cost you nothing, because you admired socialists enough to have named me after one and I too support the Labour Party. I disagree with fee-paying schools so I’m going to interrupt my education, leave my friends and possibly sacrifice my future even though you won’t be paying any fees. After all, I have principles and I’m 16 now so it’s my decision! Mum, what’s for my tea? Dad, where’s my pocket money?"

Smart kids rise to the top. That’s why so many wealthy parents pay for privilege and opportunities- it’s the o my way their kids will get ahead .
Long term though, unless they plan on buying opportunities forever, their kids will struggle when it come to anything that needs actual hard work or resilience rather than a free leg up from mummy and daddy.