« Briefing on May's local elections | Main | Ken Clarke eyes coalition with the LibDems »

Comments

What is the state primary school like nearest to number 10?

Presumably the state schools in question will be either grammar schools or comprehensives in very desirable areas.

I'm not sure this gesture will win him any plaudits seeing as most people would send their children to private school if they could afford to. Source: some opinion poll from years ago I vaguely remember.

"I'm not sure this gesture will win him any plaudits seeing as most people would send their children to private school if they could afford to."

Sounds like the reverse of class envy to me - "Oh, how they wish to be like those private school kids."

Most people want the best for their children - whether that is a good state school or a decent private one. They are therefore not too harsh on those who choose to pay if the choice is between a rubbish local school and a decent private education. But I don't think it will win too much applause either - a great deal of people can't afford to choose between state and private education, or do so at the cost of no luxuries for a substantial period of time, so the fact he has a choice makes a lot of people think how different politicians are from the majority of the population.

Personally, politicians' childrens' education is only an issue when hypocrites like Diane Abbott, having preached for years about how people's (bright/middle class) children must be sacrificed at crap schools to help others suddenly change their mind and send their kids private.

Well, he'll get the first choice school thats for sure, due to the fact he is the Leader of the Opposition. I wonder what would have happened had he not been so important...cant help being somewhat cynical here.

"Personally, politicians' childrens' education is only an issue when hypocrites like Diane Abbott, having preached for years about how people's (bright/middle class) children must be sacrificed at crap schools to help others suddenly change their mind and send their kids private."

Let's not forget Harriet Harman and the hardcore socialist class warrior Tony Blair either!

Okay, so I am a Governor of a nearby Comprehensive School, Longsands in St Neots, and I have just dispatched the deposit for my boys to start at a nearby private School, Kimbolton, in September after four years at the local primary school. If it is good enough for John Major's kids, it's good enough for mine!!

I can safely say that whilst I would run a government that would truly put the national education system at the forefront of everything it did, I am not prepared to put my children through it whilst it remains the political battleground that it has been throughout my lifetime and centuries before that.

Our local primary school has just had an Ofsted report and in the last four years the school has swung from "excellent" to "satisfactory".

The only choice out here in England-shire, is to use the local school or pay. We don't have schools every 500yds. More like every 10 miles.

What Cameron is doing is good and right and worthy but considerably easier to do in London than out here. I'd like to see him do it in Witney!

I agree with 1AM. Maybe David Cameron has the best of intentions in apparently wanting to send his child to a state school, but a fact of life is that as Prime Minister (maybe) or even Shadow PM, he is not just an ordinary Jo Bloggs any more than the Prince of Wales is, and the trouble is that some people think it is patronising when a senior figure tries to mix with the majority. Of course he could always play the 'cop out' card and send his off-spring to a privileged school like the Oratory.

I think you cynics need to appreciate exactly what Cameron has done here. His children could have had the best education that money can buy - something that most parents dream of. Instead Cameron is showing his belief in the value of state education. It is something he should be greatly respected for. I’m also very pleased that a man who will very likely become PM will be subjected first-hand to exactly the same issues faced by every other parent of state educated children.

"His children could have had the best education that money can buy - something that most parents dream of. Instead Cameron is showing his belief in the value of state education."

I don't wish to sound offensive but sending your children to a state school to make a political point is rather unfair on the children. But I expect in this case the state school will be a good one so Cameron gets to make the point without risking his children's education.

"I’m also very pleased that a man who will very likely become PM will be subjected first-hand to exactly the same issues faced by every other parent of state educated children."

As I said above, I doubt Cameron will be sending his children to the sort of comprehensive where most state education issues are noticeable. I was fortunate enough to go to a decent comprehensive and the sort of problems that one hears about in the press just weren't relevant to my school.

It's nice that David Cameron has the choice about whether or not to send his children to a state school. Many parents are denied the choice of any alternative for financial reasons, and aren't lucky enough to have a good local school.

The article in fact make the Cameron's sound like the summation of what's wrong with our school system: they're the rich parents who drive up property prices near good schools and drive the disadvantaged out.

Probably St Mathew's C of E Primary, a-tracy, which serves the Peabody estate off Peter Street. Not too many problems there: Peabody tenants have become more "diverse" over the years, but remain predominantly white working-class, passing on tenancies to family members. The management has zero tolerence of bad behaviour.
If the Camerons remain in their Oxford village, no problems. Education is closely related to property; location, location, location. Notting Hill could be a little more dicey.

I forgot to mention; graduation from St Mathews would likely take the young Camerons to Pimlico Comprehensive. Hmmm. Well, wasn't Jack Straw a parent/governor? It can't be all bad.

He is doing exactly what Blair did, using his children for propaganda reasons.

What's the betting that once they reach secondary school age, he will have changed his mind.

.....or that he wil actively remedy the shortcomings of the state school with outside tutoring, which he is well able to afford. I send my children to a state primary school too (in fact, I withdrew them from the private sector). Yet I don't pretend that they are getting the "normal" experience: (i) the school is in a village in a wealthy part of Surrey; (ii) it has tremendous practical and financial backing from parents; and (iii) I can pay for tutoring to remedy its weaknesses. The cynical ploy is to use your children as guinea pigs for political campaigning. Blair did it and Cameron seems to be doing the same.

"I don't wish to sound offensive but sending your children to a state school to make a political point is rather unfair on the children."

There's two assumptions in your statement: 1) state education is worse and 2) he's making a political point rather than doing what he thinks is best for his children.

I have the money to privately educate my children but prefer the more rounded environment of the state sector - despite its faults. In other words, I've arrived at exactly the same choice as David Cameron, but not as a political point.

Its his choice as a parent pure and simple. But after attending a comprehensive, I know, that if I had the money, if I have children, I would send them to a private school.

"I have the money to privately educate my children but prefer the more rounded environment of the state sector - despite its faults. In other words, I've arrived at exactly the same choice as David Cameron, but not as a political point."

You didn't brief the Daily Express about it though.

I struggle to see how the decisions David Cameron (oops, started writing Tony Blair there!) makes about the schooling of his children is any of our business, but by publicising it, he has opened himself up to accusations that he is playing politics with the matter.

Personally, I would stop short of accusing David Cameron of using his children as a political football, and it is apparent that he cares deeply for his children, but I do find the publicising of this 'decision' a little distasteful.

(P.S. Forgive this rant but, as a product of the bog-standard comprehensive system, I really resent the unspoken implication running throughout this thread that David Cameron has somehow been brave/reckless by opting to send his children to a state school. Sure, some state schools are terrible, but many are purveyors of high-class academic standards and provide an excellent education for children, so to make out David Cameron has condemned his children to a second-rate education in the academic equivalent of serving on the front-line in Basra simply won't wash I'm afraid.)

The point of last nights vote was that however tentatively we have started the state system down the road of private provision of state education, choice & diversity. Not much use to us in the sticks who have choice of 1 state school (provided by another LEA over whom we have no influence) within reasonable travelling distance but of benefit to the majority who live in urban areas.

David Cameron is underlining his belief that, if not for his elder children, at least for Arthur, that by the time his children have to go to secondary education in 2014 to 2017 we would have been in power for 5-8 years and state education will have been transformed. I'd feel much more confident that the putative PM means what he says if I know now that he intends to use the educational choices he is planning for the vast majority of our children.

Why should we accept that privately funded education is better than state funded - it might be the case now but I'd like to see a return to the days when private schools looked to opt in to the public system (as they did in days of direct grants) rather than opt out.

"Why should we accept that privately funded education is better than state funded - it might be the case now but I'd like to see a return to the days when private schools looked to opt in to the public system (as they did in days of direct grants) rather than opt out."

If private schools opt into the state sector then they will find themselves having to follow the regulations enforced on the state sector. It would also mean higher taxation would be required to fund them.

The Tories should now follow their support for Blair's legislation to its conclusion and call for the introduction of a voucher system and the removal of all schools from state control.

Richard - I was talking about state education in a conservative future not today. Why on earth vouchers - a piece of paper isn't a policy - if a pupil is worth £x p.a and money follows pupils then why waste precious wood pulp on a forgeable voucher?

I think we started on the public funded, privately provided route yesterday and our party spokesmen have already said we want to go further. Parents didn't need vouchers to send their kids to direct grant schools - pupil accepted, bills to ratepayer.

I think there needs to be a degree of regulation & state control - preferably a light touch national scheme of good practice & standards with a further level of more local commissioning & oversight but with most power invested in the schools governing body - as long as it's my tax money paying for it I want someone answerable to my vote responsible for efficient & effective delivery.

"Why on earth vouchers - a piece of paper isn't a policy - if a pupil is worth £x p.a and money follows pupils then why waste precious wood pulp on a forgeable voucher?"

I suppose I was using vouchers as a lazy shorthand for the system you're proposing.

Personally I'd rather have a completely privately funded system combined with massive cuts in income tax but that isn't politically feasible at the moment.

"There's two assumptions in your statement: 1) state education is worse"

That's not an assumption, it's a reality.

Talking of things "politically feasible", the single most important aspect of schools that needs to be confronted and changed if ever state schools are to match the quality of private schools - is the teachers.

Money can solve the discrepancies between school facilities and environment, food and text books, but the real difference between Buckden Primary School and Kimbolton Prep in my own children's case, is the quality and commitment of the teaching staff.

One group see it as their responsibility to educate children without reference to the clock and without the constraint of political ethos.
The other group simply teach children with eyes firmly on the clock and happily governed by policy and regulation.

I expect I offend many people with this over simplified summary, but that is how it feels.

To solve this problem and to give all teachers that crucial sense of achievement and true impact on their students lives, we must literally double the number of schools and teachers.

No school should be bigger than 650 pupils and no teacher should teach more than 20 students at a time. Then all teachers will enjoy their job and make a difference worth having.

Quit moaning, the lot of you. I know for a fact that the exact same people who are criticising Cameron on this thread would be carping just as loudly had DC chosen the private sector.

God, how depressing.

"Quit moaning, the lot of you. I know for a fact that the exact same people who are criticising Cameron on this thread would be carping just as loudly had DC chosen the private sector."

Iain, you're *always* moaning about other people moaning. Maybe you should quit doing that.

Richard -

Problem is that there are less children coming down the track - a massive expansion in schools and teachers will mean school closures and redundacy in a few years. What we need to be careful of is LEAs looking to "rationalise" schools as pupil numbers drop.

Size is an issue but teacher/pupil ratio is probably more important, with number 1 being quality of teachers even more so. After all DCs old school has around 1300 pupils!

But quality is why it's important now we give schools more independence (of both national & LEA control). If schools are increasingly dependant on attracting pupils with choice being increasingly given to parents it should be the ones with a strong ethos, with dedicated teachers that survive. If the funding model is pupil based (and the Dept of Education/LEA administrative overheads severely reduced) and Headteachers have budget management (with proper school bursars) then the mid size ones will stand a better chance of continuing to attract a healthy number.

I think Cameron has it right to send his children to a "normal" school like the rest of the population. By far the majority of comprehensive schools perform with excellent results.

The NHS is vital to people, I think it's a great service, socialist or no, I find it convenient and that's what counts.

Interesting that this fairly meaningless subject has attracted so much comment on the blog and our partys woeful performance today regarding loans has attracted so little.Have we got our priorities right?

"Quit moaning, the lot of you. I know for a fact that the exact same people who are criticising Cameron on this thread would be carping just as loudly had DC chosen the private sector.

God, how depressing."

You are wrong. I know for a fact I wouldn't moan if he did because I see nothing wrong with private education.

That said I don't think there's anything wrong with him choosing a comprehensive school, providing it's not being done as a political stunt.

"The NHS is vital to people, I think it's a great service, socialist or no, I find it convenient and that's what counts."

Yes, I'm sure plenty of people find having a service funded by other peoples' money convenient (I'm not implying that you personally don't pay through your taxes). Personally I believe those with money ought to provide services for the poor. I just don't believe in using the state to force them to pay up.

http://www.thewelfarestatewerein.com/

There is nothing wrong with state schools.
DC has never said that Grammer schools are bad either.

What he's saying is that state schools are just as important and as good as the private schools. You can move out of the system if you want to, but the direction of a Tory government should be to bring in more independance to schools and more relevant to the community around them.

"Yes, I'm sure plenty of people find having a service funded by other peoples' money convenient (I'm not implying that you personally don't pay through your taxes). Personally I believe those with money ought to provide services for the poor. I just don't believe in using the state to force them to pay up."

I agree, that its not fair on those who pay more taxation than other social groups, but health is health. I think everyone should be entitled to free at the point of need healthcare, private clinic or state owned clinic.. It's simply unimportant.
I do not believe that conservatives will refuse other people good healthcare on the basis of selfishness. Health is not like education, if you're ill you cannot do anything, if you're uneducated you can become educated without going to school.

Quit moaning, the lot of you. I know for a fact that the exact same people who are criticising Cameron on this thread would be carping just as loudly had DC chosen the private sector.

God, how depressing.

lian, Since DC has made a publicity stunt from the matter then I feel it's entirely appropriate that Conservative members subject this to scrutiny. Not all feedback will be positive.

Personally, I'm mildly pleased that DC has chosen to do this IF, and it's a big if, it is part of a strong personal desire to improve the quality of state schools.

I don't have children at this time, and If I had them right now then they'd be going to a private school, but I'd love to think that by the time I do have children the quality would have improved such that I can send them to state schools, for the reasons Mark Fulford said.

The reason why this topic attracts so much debate is because for many people it's a top 3 issue, as far as politics are concerned and many of us want to know what our leaders views are.

James Hellyer has made a very important point:

Well off families tend to live in areas where the local schools are far better than average. So wherever a family like the Camerons live, their children are likely to get a good education.

Its a form of selection that is far less fair than one based on exam results.

As for the NHS, I find it convenient and that's what counts... is not an argument.

The NHS is effectively bankrupt, despite an almost doubling of cash. It is functioning terribly (If you don't believe it read http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/ ).

Central Planning was incapable of managing steel production or coal mines, something much simpler than healthcare. Just because it is free at the point of use (Don't forget that queuing is actually a proxy for paying, so it is not free) it does not mean that it should be centrally managed.

Separate payment from provision and the system would actually start to work.

I'd need a letter from the PM convincing a foreign power to sell me their steel works on the cheap to earn enough to put all five of mine through public school.

I can't criticise Cameron on this as I am sure he would be damned either way.

However, if I was Blair though, I would be cheeky and note that education must really have improved since 1997 if a Tory leader was now happy to send his kids to state school....

How David Cameron educates his children is a matter for him.

What makes me just a little uncomfortable is the timing of this coverage especially, so soon after the education vote.

No-one will know, apart from Mr & Mrs Cameron, there reasoning. Nor should we try to second guess it. And decisions taken about primary education are very different to those taken about secondary.

I know of one area with some of the best primary schools, but a generally underperforming secondary sector. I am sure the opposite is true somewhere else.

He will also probably give his children extra out-of-school tutoring.


And there is no sham in that. A lot of concerned parents do that so their children don't fall behind.


shame!

I don't care how Cameron educates his children: it's a free country and he is a very wealthy, well-connected man who can choose whatever he likes. What gets up my nose is the smug aura of righteousness which pervades the PR surrounding his choice. It's just like the Sixties when the lefties proudly proclaimed their belief in comps by sending their children to Holland Park, which bore as much resemblance to the average comp as Marie Antoinette's toy hamlet bore to a French peasant's hovel.

Everyone on this blog knows that the state school Cameron's children go to will certainly not be average because most ordinary people will have been priced out of the catchment area. Furthermore, he can remedy whatever deficiencies there are with tutoring. In short, selection by wealth and stealth. How British.

Mark Fulford talks about his children being sent to a state school because it is a more "rounded" atmosphere. In some senses it is and in others, it isn't, as I know from my own children's experience. In any case, it is entirely legitimate to conclude that high-quality education going well beyond the basics takes priority over a "rounded" atmosphere.....whatever that means. There is no moral superiority in being state school-educated and I speak as one who was from 5 to 18. I also suspect that the "rounded" atmosphere in the state schools in Lymington is somewhat less "rounded" than that of schools in Inner London.

At some point, DC had to decide where to send his children to school. Whatever that decision was, and whenever it was made it would be a political matter which the media would analyse, so briefing them is the only thing he can do. I am sure that DC is doing what he thinks is best for his children, and a decent state primary school is a good choice. I am also sure that Tory policy remains that everyone should have a choice, whether they choose state or private education, (subject to having enough cash, of course, or get lucky with a scholarship.)

Inner City state primary schools, contrary to popular belief are generally pretty good - the outcomes for the people who can afford to send their children to private schools are pretty much the same whether they send them to private or state primaries - and that is true even in Lambeth.

The problem is that many inner city comprehensives are awful, particularly in London. The fact that the kind of parents who can afford to ship their children off to private school are the same ones who are likely to be pushy and improve school standards makes a vicious circle. No one wants to sacrifice their children's education to make a political point, so this is pretty tough to solve. No one takes a blind bit of notice of the "value added" statistics, which are in fact the best measure of a school's achievments.

"The next leader should pledge that, from day one of taking office as prime minister, where there is a choice between a public and a private service, his ministers will always use the public service."

This is utter nonsense. Tory principles are that individuals should choose what's best for them and their families, whether public or private. Following this principle is the best example. In any case, let's face it, private is almost always the best choice.

It's Labour politicians who should show their faith in public services, regardless of quality, which is why Diane Abbott is such a ridiculous figure.

>>>>What Cameron is doing is good and right and worthy but considerably easier to do in London than out here.<<<<
It's up to parents where they send their children to school or send them for personal healthcare treatment and shouldn't be a matter for the general public.

Decisions on family should be taken in the family interest.

Considering the contemptuous ingratitude Mr Cameron has displayed towards Eton College, despite it giving him the best possible 'whole-child' education, this isn't really surprising. If he's foolish enough to believe, despite his formidable income which allows him to choose any sort of education for his children, that a state school will be best, then so be it...

I think you cynics need to appreciate exactly what Cameron has done here. His children could have had the best education that money can buy - something that most parents dream of. Instead Cameron is showing his belief in the value of state education.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his children for his career.

Since Cameron is putting such trust in Brown's state education sytem let us hope we shall never again hear him rubbishing it.

But let's suppose Cameron weren't hoping to become PM. Would this Old Etonian send his children to council schools?

Never in a million years!

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker