Whitehall “braced for private schools collapse” 5

[ICouldBeVioletSky]

Starting a continuation thread in anticipation of the fourth one filling up…

www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5301690-whitehall-braced-for-private-schools-collapse-4?page=39

That’s not really the point though is it?

What happened when you appealed, challenged LEA on maladministration?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/bridget-phillipsons-perfect-storm-for-schools/

Good article by Toby Young.

Labour claim the moral high ground.

Labour supporters claim to believe them.

Glad you seem to recognise that Labour's decisions are purely populist and opportunistic. Shame that you don't expect better from our government.

The ‘rabid’ reaction is obviously to taking away education choice from other parents and children, not the entirely rational choice made by his parents and himself to stay at an independent school.

You seem determined to have an argument over a point nobody is making, he hasn’t done anything wrong by going to an independent school or working the system for his own children. It’s the hypocrisy that people take issue with.

Agree 100% 👆🏼

Not that any of it will be addressed by the very people who claim to so fervently support the policy, who will be busy flailing at squirrels.

Starmer did not go to an independent school. It does nothing for your argument to keep saying he did.

Y'know it wasn't published in the Guardian so I only learnt about that much later, through the grapevine. By then my son was at another school, but as a patent of a disabled and disadvantaged child who was pushed aside by the lovely lefty parents I've learnt a valuable lesson about champagne socialists and their true values.

I went through the appeal process with the school but the appeal was not successful, I can't remember why as it was a while ago. My son went to grammar so we are now called privileged and elitist whilst the journo and their child can claim high moral ground for going to a comp 😂 It's so utterly ridiculous :))

But he hasn't "worked the system for his own children". There is no hypocrisy there, whatever else you think of him or his policies or the private school debate. He could have sent his children to private schools (like Truss, Johnson and Sunak) or to state while he was PM but private while he wasn't (Cameron) or to an out-of-area faith school (Blair), but instead he used the local state school in the neighbourhood he lived before he was an MP and in the constituency he represents. He chose the worst one available, but that's either up to him, or possibly his son didn't get into the better one but he didn't "pull strings" because he actually is whiter than white that way, whatever else you think about him.

And going on about him attending a private school when his grammar turned fee-paying in the 1970s while he was there is absolutely the most pathetic argument available, and - though nobody making the argument seems to realise this - makes its proposers look like total cranks who can't be trusted on anything else.

And you’re absolutely sure this child didn’t meet the criteria? Because that is completely shit if it’s as stated. Do you have any other examples-your post suggests that it’s a common issue.

@FairMindedMaidenHow exactly has Starmer worked the system?

He went to Reigate grammar school which is a private school. Stop being silly.

That’s not true. He was at a fee paying school.

Yes these are the actual facts. It's all this bitter manipulation of the truth that reduces the credibility of valid points. So many distortions woven into the same old arguments that are wheeled out time after time. Best to concentrate on attacking the policy not the personal circumstances of the politician, and particularly not made up ones.

Truss, Sunak and Johnson are Tory, Starmer is Labour. There is absolutely no chance he would send his children private if he aspired to become PM. It's not a high moral decision, but a career choice.

When Starmer went to Reigate Grammar it was a state school. It became an independent school in 1976, when Starmer was 14. His parents did not pay fees at any point. He is hardly responsible for the choices his parents made about his education.

And his parents didn't have a crystal ball when he took up his grammar school place. [Waits for someone to comment "Of course they did"]

So he was there when it was fee paying. Your previous post was incorrect.

What are your objections to the policy?

Why do you keep asking me this? I've responded to you countless times. Can you just not compute that someone may not agree with the policy but also not agree with all the ridiculous hyperbole, of which the last three pages (at least) are a perfect example.

<beats head against wall>

I know you keep posting you don’t support it. I’m asking why not

You have posted many times yes but why don’t you support it? What are your reasons

RTFT

Does that help you change what you’ve posted? Your post is incorrect here, not the person you were responding to.

The school has never been selective so the only criterion was catchment. The could have moved in temporarily with relatives or rented something like this, but only for application. When I was told about that, the child was definitely commuting from their family home in another borough, the family never sold it. Of course it's shit but shit happens all the time.

Camden, Islington, Haringey, Hackney to some extent are home to champagne socialists, Labour politicians, journalists etc so of course they work the system all the time. Especially these days when going private is very problematic if you want an ideologically based career.

Tory have more integrity sometimes - Cummings is also a local and he was pestered by paparazzi but he didn't move his children to a donor's penthouse (his are younger of course but one could argue they could have been upset too).