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.

Pedants’ corner is that way ➡️ 😂

@LesserCelandine I see what you mean - yes of course they are financially selective. i was replying to a poster who'd implied they were academically selective.

I'm not a fan of private schools!

Not many of us on here were impacted by that. Most of us were born after 1870 😀. There were no school busses back then nor school skirts or school blazers either.

And as a nation we are definitely looking at the Victorian era for inspiration on how to function as a society; I mean look at wealth inequality, we are close to Victorian levels of disparity between the richest and the poorest - the richest 50 families in the UK hold more wealth than half of the UK population!

There speaks a person who has never had to try to do just that
Labour do not believe in selection by ability

Just checking. Do you think selective education is the best choice for the children who don’t get into selective schools?

Selective schooling (specifically the eleven plus / grammar school system) gives every child the best opportunities for them
Reducing those opportunities in the name of 'equal opportunities' in mean, small minded, vindictive and (if you benefitted from the system before destroying it) hypocritical

Two points here. One, if you think the 11+ gives every child opportunities, think again. It's highly tutored and unaffordable to a great many. It used to, granted. But now now.
Two, selective education benefits those who achieve it best of all - that's generally those who are tutored (yes, there'll be outliers who don't get tutored, but I've lived in a grammar area, and they are vanishingly few)

Can I add another point? It’s not just unaffordable-it’s inaccessible to many. You need to know how to operate within the system to benefit from it. So privilege begets privilege.

But also intelligence is inherited.

An awful lot of so-called comprehensives become selective at sixth form though.

You are correct @CurlewKatewhen I lived in a grammar area tutors and their details were jealously guarded. It was as if there was a secret network!
we opted out entirely and just sent our kids to a comp. They aced everything so no problem. But I am (like you I suspect) clear eyed about the process.
I am startled by some of the uncritical thinking that goes on on these threads by posters who blindly think grammars = social mobility.

Same. They used to be back in the days before the gaming started. Not any more.

@LesserCelandineintelligence is partially inherited. True. Yet I know young people who got firsts in hard degrees (like engineering and maths) who failed the 11+ because they weren’t tutored. No problem; they did well. But the system is a screw up

My point was if privilege is related to an inherited trait rather than just environmental ones then there will always be an academic attainment gap (at population level). Of course, environmental factors reinforce this. Tutoring might seem an obvious unfairness but even if you could address this, a bigger issue would be that some parents read to their young children and others don’t.

To be honest, you don’t have to be super intelligent to pass the 11+. You just have to know how to pass the 11+. If it was just intelligence there wouldn’t be any tutoring.

Which is why selection at 10 is so hugely unfair. I’ve said before that I can look at a reception class in an average state school on their first day and have a reasonable chance of spotting the 11+ passers.

Is it fair to force children who will only manage a selection of GCSEs at grade 3/4 into an academic path for five years that is designed for academic children with university in mind? And then throw them out at sixth form?

Comprehensive schools aren’t designed for academic children, they’re designed to give every child access to the best opportunities for them and to support each to achieve their full potential.

No. But a) you can’t possibly tell at 10 and b) comprehensives have sets. So nobody is forced into anything. Except probably a bit of social
mixing, which is good for all concerned. It’s important to remember that selective LEAs do not have significantly better GCSE results than non selective ones.

Selection by money you mean

They aren't abolishing private schools, so if you can't afford it you go elsewhere

I beg to differ. Ten years ago my youngest sat her A levels at what shortly afterwards was judged a failing comp. Her brother finished two years prior. One went to Cambridge, the other to another top institution for its subject - both children had full sets of A stars (old money). Both were geeky from a young age. Both were supported at home but had no extra tuition. The support was just natural chat at the table, challenging of ideas. Usual MC stuff. One of my son’s friends is now a post doc at Princeton.
my daughter now teaches post grads at a specialist institution in the UK. Classic academics, all of them.
education isn’t just about the school; it’s life. And they learned valuable lessons at that comp.

.Forgive me if I’m wrong @BIossomtoes but t I think what Blossomtoes is saying is that comprehensives are not designed just for academic children(as some Mumsnetters seem to think the education system should be) but are designed for all children.

Then why do so many children have to study GCSEs they will only get 3s in and have little practical use to them even as evidence of achievement? Or find that sixth form only offer A levels that they are not accepted for because of their low GCSEs? Why do so many have to leave school after GCSEs and go to FE colleges?

🤣🤣🤣🤣. Ok then.