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.

Agree - and also all the posts berating him and his parents for decisions they made when he was 11-16?! Bizarre.

Ah. I see the misunderstanding. You think the purpose of post 16 education is to select the A level doing elite. It isn’t.

The vast majority of kids who fail KS2 SATS do not pass 5 GCSEs. Comp or no comp system. The comp system was actually meant to deal with this, but has failed to do so. Guess what? Being around other bright kids does not up the attainment magically of those who are really behind.
If some people want to pay for private school for kids who may otherwise have failed and they manage to get some GCSEs and a good job later, that is a good thing for society.
Meanwhile kids who are low attainers with not much parental support I really doubt being in a school system that values academics so much is good for them. Our teens are some of the most miserable in the world. The comp system is NOT working.

A levels are for those achieving at least 3 x a 7 at GCSE. Nobody wants to come out and say it. There are a few exceptions where kids did no work and got a 6 as a result of that, but generally speaking, you need to be getting at least a 7 to access ADVANCED LEVELS. That is what that means. It is pre university preparation.

There are many schools that disagree and kids who disprove this. But yes, largely it’s true. Not sure what point you’re making? Why shouldn’t kids getting 4s and 5s be in the same school as kids getting 7s and 8s?

They can be in the same school offering a variety of courses at 16 plus @CurlewKate
But generally speaking those who fail KS2 SATS, fail to achieve 5 GCSEs and fail to be good enough for A levels.
So the 11 plus happens anyway. Regardless of people not liking it. The KS2 SATs paint the picture for the vast majority of kids.

In fact, we ditched Reception baseline assessment and KS1 SATS because we did not like what it showed.

That was meant to say ditched compulsory KS1, but now have the Reception https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reception-baseline-assessment-assessment-and-reporting-arrangements-ara/2025-reception-baseline-assessment-assessment-and-reporting-arrangements-ara

Why is that?
We have to hit the interventions early to make any difference at all to outcome.
The gaps for many kids are there at 4.

Turns out that wherever it was studied, yes (over 100 years of records in multiple countries provide fascinating insights into educational outcomes)
Funnily enough, teaching pupils of similar ability, according to that ability, benefits all pupils

It’s not a problem that Sir Keir went to private school. The problem is that he pretends he didn’t and wants to deny other children the chances he had.

I don’t care where my PM went to school

He doesn't deny he went to a private school, that would be ridiculous because his school is on record and anyone could look it up. However it was a state grammar school when he went there. it changed to independent and it was agreed he should stay rather than interrupt his education at that stage. I don't know whether he got any scholarship or bursary from that point, a lot do. In the past there were assisted places, government funded. He could well have qualified for that, who knows?

Just to warn you there are more shocks along the way The Titanic sank there have been two World Wars a man landed on the moon ( allegedly) and the Queen has died. Sorry to be the bearer of so much news.

You would if your PM trashed the very thing that enabled his success to become an MP and deprived others of this opportunity.

The school paid for his sixth form.

Starmer doesn’t have a successful career because the funding model changed for his sixth form. He’d have been equally successful however he was educated.

Maybe RTFT before resurrecting it … all points were discussed in the preceding hundreds of post - unless you have something new to add, abd from your posts so far you don’t… you have brought a Zombie back to life for no reason.

These anti-Starmer threads are getting tedious now. Can’t think of anything new to say, so dragging up this sort of bullshit.

They only paid for his sixth form because the funding model changed while he was a pupil at the school so they paid for all the students in that position, rather than kicking them out of their school. You’re making yourself sound very ignorant.

Don't people ever stop to think that if the only reason people can be successful is going to a private school (which is absolute rubbish anyway) that in itself might be a good reason to abolish them?

Telling us "my kids must go to a private school to be successful" doesn't say a lot for your kids, frankly.

My brother went to Leeds (Starmer's Uni) around the same time as Keir having been to a comprehensive. Comps did have sixth forms back in the 80s!

And no, comps havent failed. There are four counties in England that have retained the secondary modern system and they don't have better results than anywhere else.

He doesn’t pretend he didn’t go to a school that changed from state to private while he was there. He also doesn’t want to stop people bug private schools.

Even if his parent had chosen to send him to a fee-paying school, which they didn't, that wouldn't make him some sort of hypocrite for later introducing policies like VAT on school fees. If anything it seems like a point in his favour as he has direct personal experience of some of the issues.

On previous threads, posters have said that Starmer should,as a child, have insisted that his parents remove him from his school when it went private in case he ever became a Labour prime minister……

You should have been here in the days when Theresa May was wanting to bring back secondary moderns.

Nobody was "allowed" to be opposed to bringing back secondary mods. If you'd been to a grammar school you were a hypocrite, private school likewise, if you'd been to an SM you were jealous, if you'd been to a comp it must have been a "leafy"......

Still like that on grammar school threads!

Oh hurrah for Grammar schools. 20% of children were admitted, heavily weighted in favour of males. Everyone wanting to bring them back, naturally has a child or children who would, of course, be part of that 20%. So that's 100% of parents with 80% aggrieved.

In N.Ireland every child can access a grammar school (no need to move house). They’ve had the best GCSE results since the exam started. They’ve also got the largest amount of kids with zero GCSEs so it’s definitely a case of stepping over others to get ahead. I don’t know if this is still the case, but when I was a teacher in NI, the grammar kids got more funding per head too. So yes, they are unfair.

Saying that, I moved house to get both my kids into a grammar (in the top ten in the UK) and I regret nothing because they have had a really decent education with none of the horrors that I see in other local academies in the area. As a parent, that was my responsibility.