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

Yes, we really needed to know that you are going to Canada for a few years 😂

Does a government really have to vilify a particular group of citizens to raise everyone up? This is where identity politics gets you, choosing between vilifying pensioners, farmers and prep school children or asylum seekers.

"The truth is" - not according to FSM data and IDACI.

Are you suggesting he isn't a millionaire living in a very exclusive area with a world class school in his catchment? A school that is unlike anything most parts of the country can expect from their local schools? Or do you think all comps are all like his (which might explain why so many people think private to state isn't a big deal)? From past threads I seem to remember they had a fund paid for by parents for an entire science block...

if we do not rejoin the EU we are either going to be a US or a Chinese colony. I do not fancy either.

I agree entirely. The economic and social consequences of that is unthinkable. Voting for any Brexit-supporting party seems like an extremely dangerous thing to do at this moment in global politics.

I would consider voting Lib Dem in a general election because of their aim of moving closer to EU/rejoin. All the main parties are anti VAT on education except Labour. I’ll never vote Conservative or Reform, for lots of reasons to do with social values, not even just the economic and social disaster of Brexit.

Farage has been punching down on kids with SEND this week: https://www.learningdisabilitytoday.co.uk/news/comments-by-nigel-farage-on-send-are-fake-news-says-national-autistic-society/

On the what is a woman aspect of women’s rights, I really care about that, but all of the main parties have failed women spectacularly on that issue, such is our misogynistic country so that’s not decisive for me personally as a single issue to vote on. Thank goodness for the judiciary.

Well said

@EHCPerhaps that's a good summary. I also can't believe that I was woo'd by Kimi as I have never considered voting for Conservatives. I do think the Libs had the best policies for women, even if a lot of them are transwomen with very odd agendas, as you say the Judiciary have been our saving grace here as we sleep walk on through the minefield of men rolling back our rights. I am hopeful the LD will have quieted the slightly menacing side now, we have a clear ruling https://www.libdemwomen.org.uk/news/article/pro-trans-rights-open-letter

I liked the fact Libs wanted to pay carers properly and really think their social care policies would have changed the NHS a lot faster than whatever is going on currently. They care about SEND and mental health too which is another reason I voted for them.

That's nonsense. London is such a social patchwork that in school catchment terms any "very exclusive area" will be cheek by jowl with deprivation and social housing. I agree not all state schools do as well as others, but that shouldn't detract from those that are well-led and successful. Starmer as DPP was a successful professional as is his wife in her field, they are allowed to buy a house where they want! The science block?? No idea what you're talking about there.

@twistyizzy any news of the five KCs and when we might hear something?

Absolutely. And this is wrong.
But the question I was answering was whether I would PREFER to vote in a bunch of racist right wing extremist loons instead. To which my answer is "no".

I'm not going to re-hash this as I think everyone knows the family has benefitted massively from their financial success, which is the issue - everyone else in the country who doesn't live in London does not have access to the same calibre of state schooling. I'm not going to go around and around on this but it is generally accepted that catchment areas and house prices go hand in hand, even in London, and grammars are also not a national norm. The state system is only working for the few.

The Sutton Trust research shows that disadvantaged children are more likely to go to the worst comprehensives. Other research by the Sutton Trust shows that highly able children do half a grade worse on average at GCSE if they attend a poor performing comprehensive.
London comprehensives perform better than the rest of the country. Please have a look at the social segregation of schools research by the Sutton Trust. Therefore, Londoners shouldn't preach to people who live outside of London about sending their children to a comprehensive.
The idea that comprehensives enable all pupils to have an equal education is just untrue. Everyone knows that there is a postcode lottery for schools. Private schools allow people in areas with poor performing comprehensive to choose a better education for their child.

www.suttontrust.com/news-opinion/all-news-opinion/new-ranking-reveals-councils-with-most-and-least-socially-segregated-schools/

www.suttontrust.com/news-opinion/all-news-opinion/highly-able-pupils-worse-deprived-schools/

Education in London wasn't always better than elsewhere - 25 years ago it was a very different story. Concerted effort has delivered results, and London's success is replicable elsewhere - if local councils and academy trusts want to put in the effort.

Just setting up a school in London despite its access to museums etc. does not guarantee a good education. It took a lot of effort to improve London's education; and indeed, the success is such that more deprived children in London on school meals outperform children who don't qualify for school meals outside London.

Sorry no it's a painful waiting game sadly.
The fact we had to go back to court 1 week later as Labour were trying to supress key evidence is telling though

Sorry that's hilarious. He sent them to a school labelled "prep school for middle classes"

www.independent.co.uk/voices/keir-starmer-state-private-schools-b2239724.html

Did you read the article? The following sentence reads 'It’s not much of a gotcha, because “outstanding” though the school Starmer’s kids attend may be, it’s still a state school.'

🤣🤣🤣🤣 hardly an sink school though is it?
You think he would send his kids to one of those??

There is huge wealth inequality in state schools and the one he chose has catchment of houses costing £2 million+. The peers of his kids will be the same as those going to Eton etc.

Yes but it is still a state school and not a prep school. Typical Mail labelling.

The article also says this

“But, if we’re being completely honest, there is a difference between an institute of learning that was ruled exempt from further Ofsted inspections in 2011 and dubbed “an absolutely wonderful school – warm, nurturing, extremely well led and managed, with excellent teaching and a very inclusive ethos” – and what I remember from my state education.”

Certainly not the type of school which the majority of the state educated have the option of. We all know that people game the system by paying huge house prices and tutoring costs, to access the best state schools, and then claim to have the moral high ground. Let’s not pretend that he sent his kids to an average comp.

No my reply was in response to "his kids go to a non selective state". That's incorrect cos their school is selective based on parental income. Same as thr accusation against indy schools.
The manic virtue signalling by Starmer is the height of hypocrisy and it needs challenging and correcting.

Absolutely that. He uses his money to pay for a very expensive house in the catchment of an excellent state school and then lectures others on the morality of them using their money to also access great schools. Whether a parent pays high house prices to get into a great catchment, or whether they pay school fees, both are using their resources available to give their children a better education than others can access. Apparently though, one is commendable and the other is morally unjust.

Ah but Labour sanctioned privilege is fine, it's the other sort that's not!
When I say sanctioned I mean what the MPs themselves do of course. Privilege is fine for them, they just don't want anyone else to have it!

And let's never forget:

1. Starmer went to a private school on a bursary, and has then gone out of his way to deny other people the same opportunity.
2. At the slightest hint of disruption to his son's GCSEs he decamped to a luxury penthouse, paid for by a party donor, at the very time he was planning to disrupt the education of thousands of kids private schools.

There is no greater hypocrite than the one who pulls the ladder up, then pretends he's doing it on moral grounds.

Exactly. “Oh my own son can’t possibly be disrupted during his important GCSE year”. On the other hand “tough luck if other children have to change school and face massive upheaval during GCSEs”.

If we adhere to the correct terminology, rather than your own interpretation of what the terminology should be, his kids do indeed go to non selective state schools.