State schools and Question time

Why are you surprised?

Angela Rayner
Valerie Valley
Debbie Abrahams

All socialists. All send their children to private schools.

Valerie Vaz not Valley

Diane Abbott
Harriet Harman

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

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

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 !

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?

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 .

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.

Quite chewbacca!

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.

I agree Chewbacca

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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' .
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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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?

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.