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.

Most people manage, wouldn't you?

Oh forgive me @blossomtoesand @CurlewKate. If that is what was meant then I agree.. at least according to my experience 🌷

Well yes..it does noone any favours to put non academic kids onto a level study that they are completely ill equipped for and a standard comp won't have the means to offer the less academic more practical courses. I teach secondary. Lots of parents and kids just want to stay beyond GCSE because its safe and familiar but it's not helping them to say yes if we can't offer a suitable pathway.

Why are you begging to differ? Your kids’ experience is evidence that what I said is correct.

Maybe try reading some of the threads on why people have put their kids in private. The EBSA support thread is a good place to start if that gives you a clue.

Because A-Levels aren’t for everyone? GCSE are for most people. Even low grades are an advantage when hunting for jobs. And 4s are even more so.

Maybe try reading about the people will never be able to afford PS and have to deal with a state system that has been underfunded for the last 14 years

It is hardly comprehensive then is it? It just applies selection at a later point than Grammars do.

I think thats a fair point but the official leaving age was 16 until relatively recently. The school education system has not yet been altered to accommodate these 16-18 yo..though to be fair in my area the FE colleges are fantastic and far better able to offer a more adult experience than a school 6th form. Given the dire state of funding and lack of control LAs now have on academies, it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to separate out at 16 and for kids to choose the right path for them. It would be a poor use of funding I think for the four schools in my area to all replicate the same v high resource cost courses that the two FE colleges do.

So you agree that all schools are academically selective? Some at 11 and others at 16. So wouldn’t it be better to have schools where less academically able can thrive in courses suited to their ability and not be told at 16 they aren’t good enough to stay?

Re. selection & properly funded state system - it's sad that it is often seen as a choice between selection at 11 or large, anonymous comprehensives. What would be wrong with smaller comprehensives with a lot of fluidity between sets in different subjects, with more personal mentoring and oversight of each child, other than obviously costing more? I think this would be an investment worth making, but it won't seem such a priority whilst those in power send their children to private schools.

I worked in universities for several decades and was taken aback several times to meet academically able mature students who eventually got a first, who initially had very little confidence in their academic abilities, had done poorly at school and been frustrated with poor employment opportunities. Several of these had been knocked back by failing the 11+, but had no obvious learning difficulties like dyslexia. These weren't isolated examples but a consistent pattern year on year that suggested our current systems are not great at assessing which 11 year olds and teens have the potential to achieve what.

I went to comprehensive then moved house and went to state grammar. I did better at the state grammar, so according to the arguments of some posters I would be a hypocrite if I didn't support this choice for others. However, I think what was better about the grammar could have been achieved at a comp - higher expectations, smaller classes..., with fewer negative consequences for those who failed the 11+. I was surprised but chastened to find as a 16 yr old that some of the pupils who joined the sixth form from the secondary modern were just as bright as me, but struggled with feeling not good enough.

Yes and their kids have often had a miserable experience and been damaged as a result. On paper I couldn't afford a mortgage near a decent school so paying fees with various help from grandparents was the option. The fact is there is more disparity within the state system than there is between your average private day school and the best state schools...parents pay for one or the other just in different ways. There are thousands of kids battling through appalling conditions and bullying due to the demographic of the school they are in with parents unable to fund a move to better catchment. The idea that everyone can access a good, appropriate to need and safe state school is wildly naive unfortunately.

Lots of parents and kids just want to stay beyond GCSE because its safe and familiar but it's not helping them to say yes if we can't offer a suitable pathway.

The issue is many of these children are precisely the children who would most benefit from a safe a familiar setting in which to mature a bit more.

At least you had the option.

Changing schools at 16 is a perfectly normal thing to do. By 16 most kids have an idea of their interests, talents and possible ways forward. The same cannot be said for 10 year olds.

All 11 year olds change school apart from a few attending all-through private schools.

You mean, it is perfectly normal to tell less academic pupils that their school is no longer able to meet their needs due to their academic performance or more vocational interests?

By 16 most kids know that already. A school that cannot meet the needs of 11 year olds should be ashamed of itself. I don’t, I have to admit, understand what point you are trying to make.

Why should a school be ashamed not to meet their needs due needs of all 11 year olds, but fine about not meeting the needs of all 16 year olds? Just because most 16 year olds have learnt over the preceding five years since they joined at 11 that they are not good enough to stay/are considered too difficult to provide for?

@LesserCelandineyou are being disingenuous and you know you are. I don’t know what point you are trying to make-but I suggest you think about it, then come back and make the point you want to make. I’ll be happy to carry on the discussion then.

There is a local comprehensive in a very deprived area that had a very low staying on rate after 16 and poor results overall. They have improved significantly by providing vocational courses - often in conjunction with the local FE college. I am not convinced we need quite so many hairdressers as would be produced if all schools took this route, but it does make not only 16 year olds, but 11/12/13/14 and 15 year olds who struggle with French but enjoy playing with hairstyles or tinkering with their mates car see that their interests and ambitions are valued by the school. The school still offers an academic route with a smaller range subjects but also supports academic pupils to attend other local schools for courses they don’t offer (and have aligned their timetable for this).

@LesserCelandine that's great, really it is but you do think it's honestly feasible for all schools to offer all courses post 16? It's completely inefficient and at 16 non SEN kids needs to be able to cope with a shift to a new environment. Within a given area, reachable by free public transport, there should be an offering suitable for all students but realistically it can't be at all schools.

But isn’t that the point? If schools already are not comprehensive and tell those who are not academic that they are not good enough at 16 after sending them through a curriculum designed to test if they are, then is there not a place to consider if a range of school types would not be better?

Why bother with this duplication when there’s a perfectly good FE college? Where I live there are no sixth forms in state schools, kids move onto sixth form colleges for A levels.

They tried that about twenty years ago.. remember sports colleges and language colleges and science academies? If you do that then you're back to selecting for ability and aptitude at 11. I've been teaching this age group for thirty years. I've seen hundreds of kids change drastically from 11-16, less so 16-18. As @CurlewKate says, there's a huge difference between selecting at 10/11 and at 16. The majority know by then where their interests lie. There are some who desperately want to stay and ideally these are dealt with case by case but in the vast majority of cases people are happy to go where their talents / skills will be best served.
I do agree that there should be changes to our current system..my two teens have struggled with the number of subjects, the amount of content and sheer volume of study required in y10-11 and I think some relatively simple tweaks to syllabi and maybe modular exams would help greatly but I'm not seeing the logic of your overall stance.

I do not know where you all live that you are not having to decide either way by the beginning of year 6 what type of education will suit your DC best. Every comp or grammar round here offers different types of options at GCSEs (some more academic like triple science and Latin other only offer Spanish now, but lots of food tech type courses, some were Science/Maths top set heavy, other languages, some have great creative arts). In this underfunding environment, no comp offers exactly the same options as the others round here. So whether grammar or comp you have to decide as a parent at 10 whether your kid is a Latin/History/French type or a food tech/PE etc type for GCSEs. It is just what it is.