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.

Not that many countries have the state school - private school divide

Nobody is saying that at all. But the fact is they can get a perfectly adequate education at a non private school so you can’t say that a private school is essential. It’s blatantly a luxury and I’m amazed you can’t see that.

One of the reasons for that is chronic historic underinvestment in state schools, and various one size fits all policies imposed top down, often with unintended consequences. This country has a thriving tradition of wonderful music, drama, art and all sort of creative industries, and we also punch well above our weight when it comes to sport. Fee-paying schools tend to provide a lot of all of this kind of thing and it's one reason parents who can afford them choose those schools.

State schools are judged by how many children get through the basic GCSEs. It's harder to get top marks in other subjects and it's expensive to provide them so in many state schools these subjects are not doing well. See also: modern languages.

Then there's the whole issue of class sizes, lack of specialist teachers, poor discipline in some state schools, crumbling buildings and lack of wraparound care based in the school which is such a boon for working parents.

If we had honest, competent politicians who were prepared to tell the electorate unpalatable things and provide real leadership, maybe we would put enough money into state schools and teachers' salaries and working conditions to make the idea of paying seem a waste of money. I'm not holding my breath.

In which case, parents getting free places for their children at state schools are getting an enormous subsidy. Everybody getting free care on the NHS, ditto.

This is not how the word subsidy is understood in ordinary discourse.

Depends what you call adequate. At the only (no real choice here) state secondary that my kids would get into from our address, 40% get a 5 or more in English and maths GCSE (local authority average is 67%).

I don't consider a school where six out of ten children can't get a basic grade in maths and english to be providing an adequate education. Do you?

Yes you are considering this has been done to death!!!

state school turned grammar school whilst he was a pupil. Got a bursary.

the same opportunities are available in independent schools today - even those who are independent when you join!

People have already tried this tactic to discredit him

I genuinely don't understand what you mean?

It's not about what they are doing. It is about the fact that no one needs to go to a private school. So private education is not essential.

Um no. Because parents using state schools or the NHS pay the same tax as everyone else, and are entitled to the same public services as everyone else.

Do you perhaps not know what the word subsidy means?

I'm confused - lots of posters on here have been trying to tell us there are very few benefits from fee paying schools and that state schools have better facilities and better choice than most local private schools.

Is that not the case?

Sorry. Dashed off in haste.

I meant you can’t really criticise Starmer for his schooling. That was down to his parents.

but as an adult he took a knighthood and I thought that labour generally was less in favour of titles!

Yes of course, a school that gets £5k or so per pupil pet year will have better facilities than one which gets many multiples of that 😂
Some people are just a bit dim

So you don’t think specialist schools are essential?

You know capital budgets - that for buildings and facilities - are separate don’t you?

This constantly gets trotted out.

If posters wanted to argue for SEN schools to be exempted from VAT then that would be a perfectly sensible argument and one I'd have sympathy with.

The vast majority of private schools are not specialist schools.

So do you have no problem with them charging VAT or do you think the policy is flawed?

My DH went to a grammar school that became a private school while he was there. He didn't have to pay fees, he was allowed to complete his education there.

Same for Sir KS.

And at the time, there were grammar schools everywhere. The reason for KS's school and my DH's school becoming private was because they didn't want to be comprehensive and had the backers to allow them to opt out of the state system.

I think the policy response to SEN needs ought to be, in order of priority:

1. Make adequate provision in the state sector;
2. Provide funded places in the independent sector where necessary;
3. Exempt SEN provision from VAT requirements until such a time as 1 or 2 is viable.

I do have to say I have never seen supporters of private schools being so exercised about children with SEND. I hope their new found interest continues.

A new state secondary school is due to be built by my neighbouring region. The school itself will have swimming pool, various gyms, drama studio, theatre space, state of the art sports rooms and specially designed art studios and photography rooms, home ec spaces, there will be all flood lit all weather sports pitches, etc etc. All well beyond the facilities on offer at local private schools because a) it will be brand new rather than squeezed into old buildings, and b) it will have over 1500 pupils as opposed to under 400. The school will cost over £100 million - unlike at private schools where that cost would need to come out of fees, this cost is on top of the £9,000 the council pays per secondary pupil.

If we were to say that £100 million were paid off over 20 years then the cost per pupil for each child attending the school would be considerably higher than the fees charged by the local private schools.

I don't think it's an all across the board Labour stance, Keir Starmer was knighted about 10.years ago when he was a QC a
and I think that it is quite common for judges to be knighted.

A lot of their children have SEN

And how many state schools get that sort of money spent on them? Very few, compared to the total number. Plus you can't account for the difference in quality and number of staff you can afford......

Indeed. In my case, I only wish it was “a new found interest”. It’s actually my child’s whole life.

You clearly have no idea how much it costs to build schools. This is the going rate for a new secondary school of that size. And why do you think private schools can afford ‘better quality staff’ when, unlike state schools, their fees have to cover the cost of those buildings?