77% of the new Cabinet attended state schools - that's 22 Cabinet secretaries

[Warmfire]

and no posh tw*ts like Jacob Rees Mogg

I wholeheartedly agree with much of that but I have in the last year been researching state schools and to me the issue seems to be the inequality amongst the state schools rather than the issue of private vs state. We live in the north of England- not a particularly affluent area & the nearest private school to us is approx 15 miles away. However, there is an amazing state school much nearer to us that teaches mandarin, includes rowing as part of the standard PE curriculum and does lots more that the private ones don't. The class sizes are also capped at 17 unlike in other schools nearby and are smaller than the private schools I know of too. Trying to get in to that state school is near impossible. There is also a state grammar approx 10 mins away from us. It's filled with children from as far as 30 miles away because the standard is so good but it's highly competitive and requires the 11+. I also think that society has a large part to play in the demise of education. Teachers are expected to parent children these days and many children don't have the discipline or self sufficiency that was once a normal part of growing up. Teaching used to be about providing a tool kit and showing children how to use those tools for them to go away and make whatever they desire. Teachers are tied up in admin and having to play a part in social policing too with CPOMS for absolutely everything. There is no support for teachers and they are often playing an all in one role of healthcare, teacher, social worker, counsellor, therapist, CAB etc as the multi-agency framework that there once was has collapsed. There is also the issue of parents choosing to fund/donate to their local state schools and in affluent areas this is likely to happen more and more. The issues with the education system are not just a teacher shortage, it's all the contributing factors that make teaching a notoriously difficult job in today's society. Like with many other jobs such as in healthcare, a number of teachers I know choose to do supply/locum work as it's less stress, admin and responsibility for more money. There is a better work/life balance as you're usually not expected to do any lesson planning or marking either. I also know of 3 teachers in my family who have moved abroad to teach go better pay/conditions too. The state vs private is an oversimplification of the multi-faceted issues with the education system in the u.k

@RobinStrike thanks for sharing those links. Posters might be scathing about what other posters think but Nick Harrison, Chief Executive of the Sutton Trust, says:
“This Cabinet is the most diverse in terms of education background ever recorded. It represents real progress towards smashing the class ceiling in politics, and it’s the closest to genuinely reflect the proportion of Brits who went to comprehensive schools. But we now need to see this Cabinet deliver policies that will help tackle the barriers that are stopping many young people getting on in life.
“The Government should seize the chance to advance social mobility and bring about a revolution in opportunity for future generations. There will be difficult choices ahead in this challenging economic environment, but delivering tangible change in widening opportunity will be vital to supporting social cohesion and long-term economic growth.”

There are state schools and there are state schools. It is some years since most of the cabinet attended school. How many went from state school to Oxford or Cambridge? There are at least 2, 3 if you include the PM. Plenty of people from my generation, 1970s comps, went to Oxford and Cambridge, there were at least 5 from my year ( a northern comp). State education was pretty good back then, private schools had a reputation for educating the 11+ failures, they were not overly expensive.
The experiment in comprehensive education that Labour introduce to “level up” was initially embraced with caution. Most state schools heavily streamed pupils and were careful to separate the grammar school stream out. They were also trialling the 16+ (for runner of the GCSE) but only on the middle stream. Us clever ones still did O levels so nothing really changed until GCSEs replaced the 3 tree system. For about 10yrs there was no real change.
Rachel Reeves and Wes Streetly were both Oxbridge educated, a great achievement but not exceptional in the 90s for state educated individuals.

@Obeseandashamed I think that's the essence of this thread. People are celebrating getting more people who have closer ties with the state school system (either through their own education or with their own children, family and friends) into a position of power to champion it again for whatever reason it has been under-funded and underappreciated and its become harder for people working in the sector for the reasons you articulated.

So it's not envy that's driving this it's hope. Hope that people closer to state education will value it more and work hard to improve it. We all benefit from a better educated workforce and society. It will never be perfect or 'fair' but it can be better.

@Obeseandashamed excellent post and very true.

Going to a private school doesn’t necessarily make you posh or a twat. It’s quite a mean minded view to have about other people. It wouldn’t be ok to think state school kids are thick oiks would it? I didn’t go to private school btw.

labour still seem to struggle with questions like “what is a woman”. Lammy has an amazing and impressive education yet thinks a woman can grow a cervix. So yeah I’m not falling over myself with excitement. It’s not where you come from it’s where you are going that matters.

@Fightthepower I think this is where we begin to differ in our thoughts. I don't think having closer ties is what makes the difference. I think the difference is being empathetic, willing to listen, investigate with open eyes and mind and genuinely considering the wider issues of society. Some people go from living on the breadline to being financially successful and forget their roots so would be useless in a position where they needed to consider the needs of people in the place they once were even though they have 'closer ties'. I also agree that somebody who has lived in a bubble all their life whilst being fed with a silver spoon and unwilling to explore beyond that bubble is no better but that doesn't mean to say that another person who is willing and able cannot put themselves in the shoes of another.

I think pigeon holing and stereotyping private vs state is unhelpful and we should instead be looking at standardising state schools so that they all have a better quality before we start trying to make changes to the private sector which at the moment helps to alleviate some of the pressures on the state sector by bridging some of the gaps and freeing up spaces.

I keep reading on this thread (and on other threads and in the news - even the BBC!) a comparison of the number of privately educated MPs in the current intake (77%) and the number of school age children currently in education (7%). These are not comparing like with like. A better comparator would be the number of adults in the population who attended private school, and you would need to decide whether you meant the whole of their education or just part and, if part, which part and for how long - very few people are in private education for the whole of their education.

The 7% figure (just over 1 in 20 pupils) is the per centage of current school children currently in private education, not the % of school children who have been at private school for some part of their education (the figure I have seen for this is 20%, but I would love to know how that is calculated so I don't know if it is reliable). As above, few children will be in private education for the whole of their education.

No, Reigate Grammar School was a voluntary aided grammar school. It had been a fee-paying grammar school supported by a charitable foundation before the 1947 Education Act and after WW2 agreed to come into the state system, as a lot of grammar schools did, but only on condition that the charitable trust retained ownership of the land and buildings and employed the staff (that's what the voluntary aided bit means). Many other VA schools were C of E or Catholic schools. They had a degree of independence from the Local Education Authority.

When the 11+ started to disappear, some of these old grammar schools were closed, and others had to merge with secondary moderns as the fashion back then was for very large schools. Only a few grammar schools managed to hang on in the state system without a merger but they had to accept going comprehensive, which some navigated more successfully than others. A tiny handful with enough capital in their trusts decided instead to leave the state system again and revert to being fee-paying schools. Reigate Grammar School falls into this category.

I went to a direct grant school too and I was there on a 100% scholarship which fortunately continued after the direct grant was abolished and allowed me to finish my education there. That was a fee-paying school, though. Some parents were paying full fees but many were getting a means-tested reduction, which was also funded out of the direct grant. You only got into our school by passing the school's entrance exam with a high enough mark. Only girls who'd attended state primary schools were eligible for the scholarships and means-tested places.

I think a mixture of those people would be best don’t you? People are sniping at PPE but it’s the study of Politics and Economics - which is the kind of stuff politicians use.

Truss’s degree is PPE, clearly useful

Truss’s degree is PPE, clearly useful

Well, it didn’t help her.

Some variety of degrees in the Cabinet. Peter Kyle and Anneliese Dodds both have PhD

This…

I’d rather it was run by the people with the best brains. You can’t buy those.

Bit of a Sciences gap there. As usual.

That was my point !

@Lifeinlists I agree, although I guess it's not surprising that people who study politics, history and law are the sort of people interested in becoming politicians. People who study science generally have other career paths they want to pursue. It's why I think the Lords shouldn't be replaced by a replica second chamber with the same political party people. I think those given peerages who have had success in sciences, research, business, transport, health, sport and art should be appointed to assist with scrutiny of the Bills like they do now. It's often the Peers who have made valuable amendments.

But how they should be appointed and for how long I've no idea!

I think some of the hate that has been directed at Jacob Rees-Mogg is because he is a Roman Catholic. I worked for an employer who said no-one should be discriminated against on religious grounds but I think church-goers were discriminated against without it ever being said out loud.

The strict Roman Catholic with shares in an abortion pill company ??

Rubbish. He is discriminated against because he is a cunt.

Go on, say what you really think. 😂

Nope, had no idea what religion he was but I heard what came out of his mouth about the Grenfell victims, awful man.

I put this on the Starmer thread but it may be more useful here. The new Parliament stats

Who are the new MPs? Meet the class of 2024 in charts and graphics

www.thetimes.com/article/619070f7-3d2c-4bd3-b0d0-08131e872b94?shareToken=a9a407ab007da1299635b78e477a8f44