[Politics] Corbynite councillor sends daughter to Roedean

SollysLeftFoot said:

Man sends daughter to a school he deems to be good enough for his daughter and is willing to spend a lot of cash for her to have the best possible education as possible.

How disgusting is that.

Click to expand...

BLOCK F said:

Solly, it is not disgusting, but given his political views, it is hypocritical.

Click to expand...

SollysLeftFoot said:

Man who works for a political party who campaign for equality in education for all not just those who can afford it sends daughter to a school he deems to be good enough for his daughter and is willing to spend a lot of cash for her to have the best possible education as possible.

How disgusting is that.

Click to expand...

SollysLeftFoot said:

I'm not entirely sure I agree, but that said - I know very little of the chap's opinion on education. I get he's against privatised rail and core industry, but I've personally not seen anything where he has come out and attacked private education. Though, should you know of any articles that say otherwise, please send them. Then i'll call the fella a hypocrite.

Click to expand...

Perry's Tracksuit Bottoms said:

So he opposes the way that state schools are being run and has chosen not to send his child to a state school, have I got that right?

Click to expand...

SollysLeftFoot said:

Man sends daughter to a school he deems to be good enough for his daughter and is willing to spend a lot of cash for her to have the best possible education as possible.

How disgusting is that.

Click to expand...

pastafarian said:

This is probably the case for many voters....probably not high on their agenda.....however
Should a political party and its officials continue to object to private education as a policy for the general public whilst enjoying the system they object to for their own children?
Seems a fair question to ask.

Click to expand...

oneillco said:

No I don't think you have got that right; he opposes the way Academy schools are run, not state schools. There are only 2 Academies in B&H I believe, the rest are regular state schools. I can't see how you can reconcile paying for a privileged education and a Labour political philosophy.

Click to expand...

BadFish said:

Ia fair question indeed. This probably depends on the alternatives available to him. I suspect that given his way public education would be better funded and offer a product that suits his daughter's needs. If Labour were in power and he spent his time spruiking the public system as a provider of quality education, while sending his kids to private school you could certainly accusing him of hypocracy.

If he looks at the public system and believes that it cannot offer what his daughter needs then who can blame him for looking at other alternatives?

Click to expand...

N17 said:

Corbyn & Harman sent their kids to Grammar schools
Abbott & Chakribati sent their kids to Private schools
Blair sent his to the London Oratory supplemented by a tutor from a Private school.

I think the pattern is well established.

Click to expand...

wellquickwoody said:

But is he not using his privileged position to allow his offspring to get ahead? Fine by me, but at odds with the views of many within the Labour Party?

Click to expand...

Chicken Run said:

pretty

Click to expand...

BLOCK F said:

Solly, don't be so coy. I'm not going to trawl through articles on Nick Childs, but feel free to do so and I am sure you will get the picture!

Click to expand...

The Large One said:

Quite. For one, places like Roedean still have to jump through the same Ofsted hoops as state schools, and have the same level of professional quality teachers and staff. Academies do not.

Click to expand...

hans kraay fan club said:

Has he 'railed against private education' then?

Because everything that article highlights, centres on his opposition to the takeover of state schools by profit-making private organisations, which is a completely different argument altogether.

No hypocrisy here at all, I'm afraid. The rancid Daily mail and its hard of thinking readership need to try a little harder.

Click to expand...

warmleyseagull said:

Read posts with interest. A lot of contrary and strongly held views.

Very surprised to see the justification of a Labour councillor paying for his child's education; yes it is his money but private education is firmly on his party's hit list of don't likes. Is he going to visit folk's houses when on the stump at the election and argue that PE should be abolished, or at least the charity exemption removed? The latter is certain to be in Manifesto, the former possible. How can he truly promote his party's policies with a clear conflict of interest?

I see nowhere the question whether the daughter herself is content with this arrangement. It is his money, but surely her happiness is more important. What does she think?

And sad to see so many resigned to 'if I had the money I would do the same'. Why? You pay your taxes, you have a right to your child's free education. What does PE actually buy? I reckon three things: smaller class sizes with more motivated teachers; better facilities; and (above all) positive peer pressure.

Unpick those : smaller class sizes are (as some posters point out) actually a real problem for many PE students at uni; better teachers I get but there are ways round this: additional tuition at a fraction of the cost of the whole package of PE being the most obvious. Better facilities similarly can be overcome by paying for specific needs: sport, drama, music, skiing holidays, again targeted and at a substantially lower cost.

Positive peer pressure is actually the biggest of the three. The problem is that this defines students into a conclave of like folk whose parents are, by definition, well off, or just happen to be fortunate enough to win a scholarship (minority). They simply don't have the life experience of encountering less advantaged students. Our youngest son is an A&E doctor in North London; his job is not easy with the ever present problem of gang warfare and its consequences, but he says that very few PE Medics even choose A&E. It becomes self selective, and means many educated privately have a blinkered view and a sheltered life (not all, just many and I accept this has been mitigated recently; mitigated but not fundamentally changed).

So support the state system. Use some intitiative and funds where it fails but don't cop out. Save yourself a lot of dough and use it wisely. Above all, ask what your children want.

Click to expand...

Stumpy Tim said:

Roedean typically have 15-20 in a class. From memory, and it was 25 years ago, but my seminars at Uni were a maximum of 10 people. Undoubtedly you are sheltered a little at private school, but I'm surprised to hear that would be a problem.

Click to expand...

Mellor 3 Ward 4 said:

My son went to a state school and sixth form college, before going on to an excellent University.

His best mate went to private school and received almost identical GCSE / A Level results.

The privately educated lad REALLY struggled at Uni, as in his words 'he was spoon fed' at school just to pass the exams and get the grades required.

I'm sure he enjoyed the longer holidays though!

Click to expand...

Stumpy Tim said:

I'm sure there are lots of similar stories, but of course the two children you mention are likely very different. Your son may be extremely intelligent (I'm sure he is!), while the other kid not so academically strong - so private school helped him academically. To be honest, I don't think it's helpful to compare two children like that as everyone is different. I think private school reduces the risk of kids not getting good grades, and does give them a level of confidence that I didn't experience at state school.

The truth is, some kids will thrive at private school, some will thrive anywhere they go. There are strengths to private school, and there are weaknesses - such as living a slightly sheltered life. As parents we do all we can for our kids, and we all make decisions based on what we feel is best for them (and what is financially feasible).

I have no time for people who want to ban private schools though. Imagine the sheer number of kids who would enter the state system if they were banned! That would also mean big tax rises as new schools will need to be built - those paying for private school now are not simply going to transfer that money to the state. In addition, by banning elite schools you are basically saying that you want to hold kids back who are fortunate enough to have been born into a wealthy family. That seems as unfair as the current system, just in a different way

Click to expand...