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

It's not incorrect. It's that you don't seem to be able to understand basic facts because of your prejudices.

No thanks. Plus all your many posts are to oppose those against VAT, have you even posted one that says why you object to the policy?

Can you say now, it can’t be hard to say in a couple of lines why.

What prejudices are those? Against a fact that it was fee paying whilst Starmer was there?

Are you getting a bit frazzled here, a fact is not a problem is it

At no point did Starmer’s parents pay for his education.

This is a different statement to "he didn't go to a private school".
Do you consider children in private schools on bursaries privileged? Like Frankie Keita and other ballet children on MDS. Are they not going to private schools if they don't pay (or pay less than usual)?

That’s a different statement to the earlier incorrect one.

Of all the bonkers things people
have said on this thread, the accusation of hypocrisy levelled at Starmer for removing his
son from what was probably a pretty stressful and rackety environment to somewhere quieter while he was revising for and doing his GCSEs is the most bonkers. He went to stay with a family friend. The fact that the friend was very rich is irrelevant. Most of Starmer’s friends are probably pretty rich. And any that aren’t are unlikely to have the space to accommodate someone else’s teenager.

Back to this. You do know politicians don’t hold the media at home and are likely out of the house a lot during campaigning.

No he didn't. He sat and passed the 11+. Subsequently the school left the state sector and pupil like him were allowed to stay and finish their exams etc there.

Well we’ve all now googled so you’ve outed the poor kid - unless it’s a double bluff 😂

When did GCSEs finish in 2024? Must have started and finished way later than the 2025 GCSEs...

And yet again (how can you still not understand this?) we're not criticising educational choices. Education is worthwhile, and a responsible government should make good education more accessible, not destroy it.

What we're criticising is the utter hypocrisy, selfishness and lack of awareness of Starmer now: attacking the educational system he benefitted from.

It actually makes it worse that other people paid for it, not him/his parents (the state paid when it was grammar, and first the council and then other parents paid for him when RGS became private). It shows a complete lack of appreciation and gratitude for what he was given... to now remove that education from other children.

He's not there any more, so I don't suppose it matters. Also, you might have noticed that his parents have moved since his GCSEs, so it may be that he's at a school/college nearer their new house.

Starmer was 14 when his grammar went private and he was the lucky one because that private school gave him a bursary! Had he been disrupted age 14 he would probably never made it to the top job in the country. Rather than being grateful for his own good fortune, and serving his country and ALL the children in it, he is attacking other children and willing disruption on them, which he was himself shielded from, by the goodness of the school he attended.

Time to reread Animal Farm and the pigs in the through everyone. Remember one rule for them, rest of us can lump it and our children too!
Mine are not even in private school, just wanted to possibly go to specialist music school.

Remember - ”No animal shall sleep in a bed”

• becomes “with sheets”
• until the commandment goes.

Yes, I do. Is AN Other parent who has a small house sending her child to Grandma’s down the road to revise because the baby cries a lot a problem too? Or me-when I stopped my younger ones playing football outside DD’s bedroom and sent them outside? Both examples obviously indicate some privilege because that is an option not everybody has. But it is EXACTLY the same as Starmer sending his son to stay with a friend.

So do you believe that when this change happened in 1976, the school threw out all the kids whose families didn't immediately start paying fees? I'm not specifically familiar with Reigate but I do know the details for a couple of other similar schools. Schools that had been operating with academic selection under the state system had to choose whether to stay in the state system and stop being academically selective to become comprehensives, or retain academic selection and become private. In each case I am aware of, the school used existing capital reserves to function during a gradual transition period - all new pupils had to pay fees, naturally, but no pupil who had started at the school under the state system was required to pay fees at any point. There was no "bursary" - no fees were due, and Starmer was studying with the same cohort of pupils who joined at the same time as him under the state system, so the normal mix of whoever could pass the entrance exam regardless of family income. No more privileged than any other state-grammar pupil (obviously that is still a privilege but not one that is relevant to this point). The school would not have been a particularly luxurious or well-resourced place to study during this transition period as they would have been trying to operate the entire school's budget with from the limited funds from the minority of new pupils who were paying fees, supplemented with what could be released from capital funds. I doubt that Starmer's last few years at the school were any more privileged than the first few.

Part of education ( some would say a very important part) is meeting people from different backgrounds. The broadest intake is in State Schools. In some areas Secondary catchments are sorted to include children from as wide an economic background as possible. So where I live historically the children come from very poor inner city Primaries and also Primaries in rich areas.

The advantage to both sets of children is palpable. They get to see a life they have not themselves experienced before. Many well paid professional jobs require a knowledge of and insight into the least wealthy eg GPs, Barristers, Teachers, etc.

Many children also have their eyes opened to educational, professional possibilities they'd never heard of before. Win win.

Incidentally it is important that all children have access to free school breakfasts because of the social benefit to include as wide a range of background in none strictly 'learning' situations and to avoid the stigmatisation of just picking out the poorest.

This is why we pay taxes at differing rates so all children can benefit whatever their own parental income etc.

His parents sent him to that school when it was a state grammar school. It switched to a fee paying school while he was there and he was allowed to stay and not pay fees. The school was the same one he started at but it now had a price tag, which was no fault of his parents. Should his parents have withdrawn him because new joiners in younger year groups paid fees? That would be ridiculous.

Even if his parents had chosen private school for him at eleven, what's that got to do with him? Last time I looked his parents were not governing the country.

Why would I be frazzled?I have absolutely no skin in the game. I am just bemused at just how bitter and twisted some posts can be.

The pp was incorrect, he was at a fee paying school.

All these posts don’t change that. Any more on why you don’t support VAT?

It shows a complete lack of appreciation and gratitude for what he was given...

That’s the most bonkers assertion I’ve seen on this thread (and that’s saying something).

Well you highlight there how many dc would benefit more than someone in a decent size house with no babies or toddlers around. And no media despite claims to the contrary.

Plus the dates are out so the excuse was likely a lie anyway.

And are you saying that no body can look at things that happened to them in their childhood and think “Actually, there was a lot wrong with that-there have to be better ways…”

https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2021/06/king-of-the-middle-class-radicals-that-was-grammar-school-educated-sir-keir-starmers-university-nickname/

Here is the Tory perspective on it.

Starmer could have left Reigate grammar at the transition point rather than take the Sixth Form bursary and pursue middle class endeavours like playing the flute at the Guildhall on Saturdays. Living in Oxted, grammar school, musical endeavours, it sounds so very working class, does it not?!
It is clearly all BS and his parents clearly were not embarrassed to do what was best for their child, for free and take the Sixth Form place.
A courtesy he does not wish to extend to any children of some of the posters on here. They deserve to be disrupted by VAT.

Of course. Privileged is a thing. I frequently get lambasted on here for talking about the privilege I have. Out of interest, why do you think Starmer fils went to stay with Ali? Maybe he had a massive falling out with his parents? Who knows? Maybe he’s right leaning and found the whole thing upsetting. I assumed it was GCSEs because I didn’t look at the dates . But does it matter why?

No. You are just looking for an excuse to pick holes because you only seem to be able to think in one dimension. Jog on.