Gransnet forums


State schools and Question time

(64 Posts)
PamelaJ1 Sun 10-Jun-18 09:37:57

Like Rod Liddell of the Times I was impressed by Shami Chackrabati’s answer to the question on the benefits of comprehensive schools. Look where it got her after all.
I must admit that I did wonder where her children were educated but gave her the benefit of the doubt.
She spends £20,448/year to send them to Dulwich College.
Do what I say, not what I do?

kittylester Sun 10-Jun-18 09:39:11

Why are you surprised?

Chewbacca Sun 10-Jun-18 09:50:11

Angela Rayner
Valerie Valley
Debbie Abrahams

All socialists. All send their children to private schools.

Chewbacca Sun 10-Jun-18 09:50:44

Valerie Vaz not Valley

Chewbacca Sun 10-Jun-18 09:55:36

Diane Abbott
Harriet Harman

Comprehensive schools are great for kids. Just not THEIR kids.

Greyduster Sun 10-Jun-18 09:57:50

As Kitty says, no-one should be surprised, but the hypocrisy of these people is jaw dropping!

Anniebach Sun 10-Jun-18 10:04:19

Emily Thornberry

She sent her children to private schools and said - I want the best for my children and all children . This on being asked why she was against grammer schools !

Grandma70s Sun 10-Jun-18 10:16:55

It partly depends where you live. My son went to a comprehensive that was reasonably good. He now lives in London, and the state schools near him are not good at all. He has (reluctantly) sent his children to selective private schools, at huge cost. I think he’s right. All he wants is a decent education for his children.

In an ideal world, all schools would be good. In the real world, it’s not the case. What does one do? Sacrifice the children’s education on the altar of an abstract principle?

Anniebach Sun 10-Jun-18 10:21:18

It depends on your income surely , if you can’t afford to pay for your children’s education you have to send them to state schools regardless .

Chewbacca Sun 10-Jun-18 10:24:11

Personally I have no problem with sending children to either grammar or private schools. My problem lies in MPs who want to abolish such schools as being elitist, but who have no compunction in sending their own. I fail to see how this is anything other than hypocrisy.

kittylester Sun 10-Jun-18 10:26:34

Quite chewbacca!

Joelsnan Sun 10-Jun-18 10:28:46

I think good education is a combination of well educated and inspiring teachers and a strong work culture. There are excellent state schools and poor public schools.

Anniebach Sun 10-Jun-18 10:31:39

I agree Chewbacca

winterwhite Sun 10-Jun-18 10:34:37

What mediocre schools need as well as good teachers is the support of engaged parents committed to improvement.

What is disguised as ‘doing one’s best for one’s children’ in this case actually means buying them advantages over those with whom in later life they will have to compete.

IM0 particularly reprehensible when MPs behave in this way. They are the ones who decide the system for everyone else.

Grandma70s Sun 10-Jun-18 10:37:03

Ideally I think there would be no private schools, and then perhaps the standard of state schools would improve. The difficulty is that those who have school age children NOW are dealing with what’s available at the moment.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think all state schools are bad or all private ones good - far from it. Go by the individual school.

Anniebach, of course it does depend on income to some extent, though there can be scholarships. My son and his wife both work incredibly hard to afford the fees. What they earn goes on school fees, not cars, holidays or a bigger house. Priorities.

gillybob Sun 10-Jun-18 10:38:50

2 (very new) large secondary schools in our town are failing . One is in special measures and there is talk of closing the other. How has this been allowed to happen? Is it because once they are on a downward spiral they can’t attract good teachers ? Is it a poor head? Surely it can’t be the children.

Anniebach Sun 10-Jun-18 10:40:17

Grandma70s, are you claiming all,parents could afford to pay for their children’s education if they worked harder?

Grandma70s Sun 10-Jun-18 10:50:46

Anniebach, no. I’m just pointing out how my son and DIL do it and what they put first. Neither of them are from families with lots of money.

Jalima1108 Sun 10-Jun-18 10:56:07

My problem lies in MPs who want to abolish such schools as being elitist, but who have no compunction in sending their own. I fail to see how this is anything other than hypocrisy.
Absolutely Chewbacca!

Many MPs, even if they do not send their children to private schools, live in areas where the local comprehensive school is excellent, or manage to get their children into a school in a 'neighbouring borough' hmm.
In a country town there is often only one comprehensive school, even if it is failing there is no other choice.

I will say that the only MP who did not behave in a hypocritical fashion was Jeremy Corbyn, who did not want his son to go to the grammar school after he passed the 11+ (why let the child take the exam?) but his wife insisted and they got divorced anyway.

Would I sacrifice my child's future for my political principles by sending them to a bog-standard or failing comprehensive school?
If I could afford to choose, I would not and neither do these MPs - but I do not preach otherwise.

Jalima1108 Sun 10-Jun-18 10:57:30

Neither of them are from families with lots of money.
However hard some people work, they will not be able to afford the £20,000 or so p.a. for each child's fees!

Grandma70s Sun 10-Jun-18 11:04:13

I know that, Jalima1108.

For those who are objecting to parents who pay for their children’s education buying something that not everyone can afford: would you expect someone who can afford a nice house in a good district to move to somewhere cheap and unpleasant just because not everyone can afford to live in the nice house? It’s the same principle.

trisher Sun 10-Jun-18 11:15:56

Shami Chakrabarti married well, and her ex-husband was public school educated, so possibly he got his way with their children's education.
Comprehensive education properly funded would be the ideal, with public schools absorbed into the system. Unfortunately this government have used the "Free school" system to starve local authority schools of funding.. So the answer, sadly, to gillybob's question is it is a downward spiral caused initially by poor funding, accelerated by multiple problems in society which schools are left to deal with resulting in lack of staff willing to commit to such complicated and difficult work. It's why parents are looking at schools when their children are small and moving house to get into somewhere that is successful. Unfortunately for the failing school they also pick up the problem children who are excluded from succesful schools, and the downward spiral continues.

Grandma70s Sun 10-Jun-18 11:43:45

Good points, trisher.’ Funding is the most important thing.

Chewbacca Sun 10-Jun-18 11:56:09

You're absolutely right Grandma70s, funding is vital to ensure that all children can access a good education. But that doesn't address the fact that several MPs, who have lobbied for grammar schools to be closed, on the grounds that "selection means rejection for the majority" sounds good doesn't it, actually send their own children to fee paying schools. Can anyone explain how that's not hypocrisy?

trisher Sun 10-Jun-18 12:11:24

If you have a government that you know is cutting funding to education, or shifting money so one lot of children will benefit more than another, you vigorously oppose and vote against that. If the resulting cuts mean that your child will be pushed into a sink school you do what you can and buy the best you can afford. You can still be fighting for properly funded education for all. It's not hypocrisy it's pragmatism. What is hypocrisy is voting for cuts in education for most children whilst spending money on your own.