Keir Starmer went to private school

[Asking4afrend]

AIBU to be shocked that Keir Starmer went to private school? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. So he enjoyed an excellent education which increased his social mobility and then wants to bring down the system that helped him, even when they gave him a 100% bursary so that his parents didn’t have to pay the fees?

This is from wiki:

Starmer passed the 11-plus examination and gained entry to Reigate Grammar School, which at the time was a voluntary-aidedselective grammar school.[1][12] The school converted into an independent fee-paying school in 1976, while he was a student. The terms of the conversion were such that his parents were not required to pay for his schooling until he turned 16, and when he reached that point, the school, by now a charity, awarded him a bursary that allowed him to complete his education there without any parental contribution.

I only found out about this today when I was googling the school for another reason and looked up the alumni. What a hypocrite. You didn’t hear about this in the election during all his “my father was a toolmaker” speeches.

Grammar schools were fantastic for social mobility. Their demise has been a catastrophe.

It depends on whether you think kids should attend school in their local community. IMHO, that’s preferable. Kids should be able to walk to school and have school friends who live near them.

We live in a lovely area and when we moved here we were in catchment for a good State Secondary but extensive house building has pushed us into the catchment for a Secondary so bad even people who work there told us to try and find an alternative for DD.
Moving would have been more expensive and inconvenient than Private and we would probably have had to downsize so Private it was
We are lucky that it was an option then but now with fee increases and VAT we may not have had a choice now

Or maybe they want the businesses to pay their taxes?

Bringing down the system in so many ways as it seems that the curriculum is now being completely changed to remove all academic credibility and most of our history and destroy our language and goodness knows what else. This is what we should be up in arms about.

The only way to get a decent education is to select a school which provides a decent education, a rare thing, and often requires money to be paid for it. This was definitely the case when I was a child. For a start, the only schools which taught grammar, ignoring the "progressive" trend to destroy education at the time, were feepaying schools. But what should be happening is that that superior level of education should be available to all.

Completely agree with this. And it's why I disagree with the VAT change - all it's done is turn good state schools into the new private schools, with affluent parents elbowing their way in, buying property nearby and pricing disadvantaged families out. Now less wealthy students have even less of a chance of getting a good education, because the good state schools are in higher demand.

I've seen the argument that private school parents would be able/willing to pay regardless, and from what I can see it's not true. Most of the families I know who were planning on going private are now planning to move to get close to the top state schools instead.

He doesn't send his children to sink comprehensives. He lives in an enclave where the average house costs £3 million. Smoke and mirrors.

It converted to private mid way through but the grammar kids didn’t have to pay fees

They did have to pay fees in the sixth form - and they brought in some fee-paying girls in the sixth-form to make up the numbers.

Oddly enough, I don't really care if you believe me or not!

White people in South Africa benefited massively from apartheid. If one of them, who grew up during apartheid, said it was a bad thing, would you be calling them out too?

I think that inheritance tax should be abolished. Tax has already been paid on that money.
I want to leave every penny to my children, not the State.

@bumpitybumper I agree with you. I have a practical question - we are moving back to the Uk from abroad soon and it is going to be tough and finding good schools would be wonderful, we can move to any area of the UK - which areas have fantastic state schools?!

No one should criticise the Prime Minister for the choices his parents made when he was a CHILD. But they should absolutely attack him for the vandalism he has unleashed on our education system: on private AND state schools and particularly on children with SEND. The impact of all of this will be felt in the years ahead, when even more schools have closed with the mass redundancies that will come with it. These will occur in rural areas where small prep schools are often one of the few centres of employment.

The fact he went to a school that was selective and eventually private is absolutely relevant. He should be mindful of pulling up the ladder he was given to climb.

I went to private grammar school in the 80s and then had a bursary for Sixth Form.

That does not oblige me IN ANY WAY to support either system now.

I also remember from the days back in 2017 when we were arguing over Theresa May's attempt to bring back secondary moderns that it wasn't actually possible to make the "right" decision.

If you went to a grammar you had to support the selective system, if you went to a secondary modern you were jealous, if you went to a comprehensive then it must have been a "leafy", if you sent your kids to a comp then it must be a "leafy".....

You were never allowed to believe that while nothing is perfect, a well-funded comprehensive system might just be the system with the most going for it.

My children have never been able to walk their catchment state school because we are on the edge of catchment and the school isn't in the middle of the catchment area. This isn't uncommon is some areas. I agree that ideally kids would walk to school but I think social mobility and equality is more important.

@Dangermoo You posted every few minutes until I asked you to knock down something you described as straw man. It's tough, right?

The reputation of grammar schools for social mobility has been greatly exaggerated. The vast majority of poor and disadvantaged children failed their Eleven Plus and went to Secondary Moderns where they took CSE's rather than O'Levels. These schools did not have sixth forms and children left at 16 or even earlier, many without any qualifications as all, and went into low-skilled manual jobs.

There were some very bright working class children with involved parents who did manage to pass the 11 Plus but they often struggled in grammar schools.

It's fascinating how many posters here think Kier is not responsible in any way for how he was educated. And no criticism should be levelled at him.

Yet don't take the same tone/line when it comes to someone like Boris Johnson and Eton (where he was on a full scholarship).

I bet my roots are more "humble" than your husband's. I, too, went to comprehensive, have four degrees and had a great career. I didn't see going to state school and university as a "leg up" and I don't get why you do.

Starmer went to a state school that changed status whilst he was there. Your statement that he 'could have left' for 6th form is LUDICROUS. Stop digging - you're making a fool of yourself.

This. Also, there wasn't "expensive private tuition". The ordinary state primary school teachers encouraged the children they thought would pass the 11+ and gave them extra bits of work - mostly arithmetic, "problems", comprehension, story writing. I remember solving "codes", for example. Some of us had extra practice with the head mistress. I don't remember really knowing what the extra work sheets were for at the time.

You’re a bit late to the party there. We’ve all been reading about this for years.
And no he did not go to a private school.
Glad you got yourself educated about that one 😉

I don't know if you're talking about your own situation or in general here, but if the latter, a substantial part of most people's estates is their home. People dying now have potentially benefitted from decades of not only unearned but untaxed equity. Thus, policy should not be made on the basis that the money has already been taxed.

If you meant you specifically, ignore this.

Sky News reported this after the election

"Out of 25 cabinet members, just one went to private school and one to grammar, with the remainder - 92% - attending comprehensive school, according to analysis by The Sutton Trust.

By comparison, in the cabinets of Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss just 19% of ministers were state educated.
About 6% of children in the UK go to private school, meaning this cabinet closely reflects the educational experiences of the general public"

nope - i have never criticised any politician for their education.

I have, and will, continue to criticise anyone at all who doesn't admit/agree that their private education had a role in their success as an adult. Whether that is because the school was selective and they were/are clever or because it is due to the (in)valuable networking opportunities it gives.

I actually got a job once because of the school i went to. OK it was as a barmaid and the landlord was a bit of a snob, he wanted to "raise the tone".

But i was born on a fairly (very) rough council estate and got a job once because the recruiter was born 2 streets away (20 years before me).

We use the talents / resources we have

Because he wasn't!

Johnson wasn't either. However, the privilege accrued from being an Etonian applies to whoever went there - it's less about the education and much more about the kudos and links which such people benefit from for life.