George Osborne chooses £11,000pa private school for his two children

Tonight's London Evening Standard (no link) is reporting that the Shadow Chancellor is planning to send his two children to an £11,000 prep school; Norland Place.  [Hat-tip: Sky News blog.]

This will be controversial and contrasts with Mr Cameron's hope to send his children to state schools.

But if it is politically difficult few Conservatives will quarrel with Mr Osborne putting his children's future before any short-term electoral considerations.  If someone has wealth - and Mr Osborne is heir to a considerable fortune (the Osborne & Little wallpaper company) - it is much better to spend that money on your children than on personal luxuries.

PS Ben Brogan adds an interesting PS to this blog post of his.  Apparently the prep school story was a Telegraph exclusive.  The Telegraph contacted Mr Osborne's office for a quote only to see the story appear a few hours later in the Standard - and in a relatively favourable way.  If true Mr Osborne may have succeeded in partially spiking The Telegraph's story but he is playing a risky game.  The Tory-Telegraph relationship is going through another rocky patch and such tactics won't help. 

7am, 2nd February: A spokesperson for George Osborne issued the following statement to The Telegraph: "George has always said that, like any parents, he and his wife would choose what they thought was the right school for their children. That's what they've done, and George has never tried to lecture other parents on what they should do. Norland Place is near their home, and indeed was the school that George himself went to, and was very happy at."

1pm: Simon Chapman relates this issue to supply-side schools reform.

Comments

[Tony Makara]

I would have done the same if I could afford it. State education currently fails our children and I fully sympathise with anyone who wants to pay to ensure that their children have a good education.

[Conservative Homer]

Good. Every child in private education is not only benefiting their own education, but reducing class sizes in state schools as well. Everything in a governments power should be done to encourage private schooling.

We should bring back assisted places or tax relief for private education ASAP.

[Alan S]

I have no objection to George Osborne spending his inheritance on good education for his kids or good healthcare for himself (should he have private insurance).
What I object to is his opposition to grammar school education for poorer families and the ending of the patient passport healthcare policy that would have helped poorer families afford faster private medical care.

[Comstock]

YES another Tory own goal. IMHO private education is vile and Osbourne is out of touch.

Law and Justice, the Hon Member for Sidcup with his hands in the till, Labour ahead in the polls and now this.
What a great week!

[Tory Lady]

Well done George. Only by striving for the Best, can our country pull up the poorest.
Conservatives should lead by example and not dumb down.
We should also not pander with the politics of envy.
A successful policy now would be to return taxes to those parents who opt for private schooling and who are relieving the pressure on the state schools. What a winner for the electorate.

[Alan]

George Osborne is not wrong to send his children to a private school. However he is wrong to send his children to a private school but also dismiss school voucers. Why should only the rick be given choice? Let all parents decide which school their child goes to.

He can't both support comprehensive education yet pay for his kids to bail out of it.

[Comstock]

I wonder if the shadow chancellor can do the following sum?

5.50*37.5*52

The answer is 10,764, Georgie boy.

Thats right, your private schooling is costing more than many workers earn.

Can't wait to read tomorrow's Mirror :D

Night all.....

[Ash Faulkner]

I don't blame him, I'd do the same. Though I agree with Alan, choice should not be the preserve of the rich and Osbourne should support vouchers. But there we are.

As for comstock, why is private education 'vile'? Because it is, at present, the preserve of the rich? The fact is private schools are generally far better than state ones. To dismiss them because they are 'vile' and go against your principles is to put ideology before education - which is precisely what this country has been doing for the past four decades, and it hasn't work very well.

[Politico]

It still has the image that the party is an out of touch elite.

[Ash Faulkner]

Perhaps, but some things are more important than the reputation of a political party, and to any parent, their child's education is one of them. As Diane Abbott so happily proves.

[matthew]

The sickening thing is not that he chooses to do this, but that politicians do this because they are wealthy and can afford to, while doing absolutely nothing to challenge the status quo of state education, even when they know it is not good enough for their own children.

They are prepared to pay all the games and posturing about state education and comprehensives with other people's children, but when it comes to their own it's a different story.

Useless hypocrites.

Why is Osborne calling for radical change to state education with proper discipline? Just do nothing, educate his own children in luxury, and let the 10 million children stuck in state schooling fester. Why would he care? He obviously only cares about himself, and his fortune. It's all just a game to him. A jolly jape for jolly old Gideon.

[Tony Makara]

Its sad to see the bitterness coming from some people. Yet again it shows how people try to score political points over children. When are we, as a nation, going to move away from bitter class distinctions? We all belong to the same nation, whether we are millionaires or minimum wage. We need to extend opportunity to others, yes, but at the same time people shouldn't be bitter about those that are well off. Inverted snobbery should have no place in our country.

[Anon]

Remind me of some of the reasons about our grammar school debacle and how we should not believe in selection BETWEEN schools.

You cannot on the one hand deny a form of selection to one group and then for your own family choose selection which frankly is solely based on how much money you have.

[Richard]

"Thats right, your private schooling is costing more than many workers earn."

But less than most people earn. The middle classes make up the majority of the country, the days of class war are over. If people are able to afford to buy their children a good education, why shouldn't they? Is it really vile to want to give your children a good education?

What is your opinion of attempts to introduce low cost private education for those who can't usually afford the standard fees? The Civitas New Model Schools for example? Is making private education more affordable "vile"?

http://www.newmodelschool.co.uk/

[David]

What I find offensive is that George Osbourne supports policies which prevent other parents from making the same sort of choices.

The burden of taxation financially hobbles most people, to the extent that the state school is the only option. The Conservatives opposes education vouchers and they oppose selection on academic ability.

For decades now the Conservatives have supported the Left's ideological position on education. But they choose a very different sort of educational environment for their own children.

Whenever I'm tempted to vote Conservative, I remember their policies on education, which strongly favour state control, and come to my senses again.

[Catherine]

But without his family's money, he wouldn't be Shadow Chancellor

[School vouchers NOW!]

George Osborne's spokesman said ''George has always said that, like any parents, he and his wife would choose what they thought was the right school for their children''.

Of course he's lucky he has that choice, many parents don't and under Osborne they still wouldn't have choice. Gove needs to argue for school vouchers.

Frankly this makes the party out of touch. I knew he was a liability.

[MHDH]

Well done, Osborne. I think you are a very weak Shadow Chancellor, but this shows some spine compared to the pathetic, shameless grandstanding of Cameron in sending his kids to a state school.

I really would love to have been a fly on the wall chez Dave when the family discussed that decision. I'll bet his baronet father-in-law and wealthy stockbroker father were cock-a-hoop.

[Comstock]

Morning, lots of stuff to respond too! Tony M: "Its sad to see the bitterness coming from some people..When are we, as a nation, going to move away from bitter class distinctions? We all belong to the same nation, whether we are millionaires or minimum wage"

That is something we could have a whole thread on! Am I proud to be British? Yes Do I have more in common with a British billionaire than a French office clerk? No.

"What is your opinion of attempts to introduce low cost private education for those who can't usually afford the standard fees? "

I don't agree with it, Richard. I think everyone should go to their local state school- end of. That would still make him fortunate. If George doesn't like the schools in London what is wrong with the ones in Tatton?

Ash said "The fact is private schools are generally far better than state ones." In terms of what? If you are talking about preperation for life, I'm not so sure. OK you could make a case that a private school equals nine GCSEs, a good comp eight, an average comp seven and a sink comp only five, but that doesn't equal preperation for life. Surely school is about getting rich kids to learn about the world and poor kids to aspire to better.....

To dismiss them because they are 'vile' and go against your principles is to put ideology before education

Sure, disclaimer on all the above- I don't have children. I actually have some sympathy for lower middle class parents who scrimp and save to send their kids to private school- but that doesn't make it right...

[John Ionides]

For those advocating school vouchers it seems that Gove is putting forward precisely the supply side reforms that would be required before vouchers would be effective (and the idea that the money follows the child may not be implemented as vouchers, but is a very similar concept).

As for lizards like Cormstock; why shouldn't I be surprised. The reason that independent schooling is flourishing is because the state sector is so blotchy. Why is state education so bad? Not least because of a lot of crazy left wing thinking that equates equality with reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator.

So Osborne has voted with his feet. As has Diane Abbot and not doubt countless other Labour party members, who conveniently forget their criticisms when it comes to their own children. The hypocrisy of Cormstock and his ilk is staggering.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Not much of a story is it? It will be interesting to see how big a splash it makes in the media. Not huge I think. I wan't aware that the relations between the party and the Telegraph were 'rocky' rather I thought people like Iain Martin were trying to champion Osborne as a'hare' to use your phrase Tim. But then what do I know, I'm stunned that a newspaper like the Daily Telegraph would choose to make the Shadow Chancellor's choice of school a story anyway .I thought that's the sort of thing best left to a total rag like the Mirror.

[Comstock the lizard]

The hypocrisy of Cormstock and his ilk is staggering.

Eh? Surely a hypocrite is someone who says one thing and does another i.e. talks the leftie talk and then sends their kids to a private school. I don't have any children, as I just pointed out above.

So how can I be a hypocrite?

Oh and it's COMSTOCK, and I quite like lizards :D

[Dave]

So Osborne will send his kids to private school, well good for him. Why should he put them at risk of lousy education and violence, Lord of the Flies style, from the local feral infants? If it's good enough for that great leftie, Dianne Abbott.....

On another note, read this piece on Brown by Andy Gimson:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=YFBD0QCJE0APPQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2008/01/31/npolice331.xml

"We imagine Mr Brown felt happy his half-hour ordeal was over, and quite pleased with how it had gone. For although David Cameron had been very rude to him, and accused him of being "physically incapable of answering a straight question", the Prime Minister had managed to tough it out.

Yet in that moment when he retreated from Mr Johnson while wearing such a broad grin, some of us found the evasive shamelessness of our Prime Minister crystallised.

Dickensian powers of exaggeration are needed to get to grips with Mr Brown, an obsessive workaholic who will say absolutely anything to show he is always in the right, and Mr Johnson has those powers of magnification.

To treat Mr Brown as if he is amenable to reason, which is the polite fiction maintained by Mr Cameron and also by Nick Clegg for the Liberal Democrats, is a compliment the Prime Minister does not deserve. Mr Johnson's spontaneous indignation somehow helped to expose that fiction, though Mr Brown is doing that himself by insisting on so many implausibilities that he is becoming unbelievable."

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

This is of course the descision of the Osborne family, and it isn't the business of anyone else.
I think it would be far worse if he decided to send his children to a deprived state school, because of the short-term electoral considerations of the Party. It might have pleased the Guardian and the Mirror though.

[Editor]

Please be courteous to one another. Commenters who play the man and not the ball will have their contributions overwritten.

[David Cooper]

This ought to be a non-story. It only becomes a story by virtue of the fact that politicians have the power to deny electors what they want so far as education opportunities are concerned. For my own part, George Osborne's "nothing but the best" is preferable to David Cameron's "mustn't be seen to denigrate state education", but in any event the worst image here is the memory of the graphic on this site last year of the ladder being pulled up.

[Tony Makara]

My experience in life is that snobbery is never top-down but rather the other way around. How often I've heard people moaning about a person being wealthy and sending their kids to a posh school etc, yet at the same time they think its acceptable for their premier league hero's to earn 50,000 quid a week and live in a mansion with a swimming pool and a wag for recreation. What George Osborne is doing for his kids is commendable, he is a father who wants the best for his kids. Besides money isn't always a guarantee of academic excellence, look at Diana Spencer for example, money can provide a good learning environment but its all down to the talent of the child in the end.

[tim]

The highlighting of Queen Sloane types is dangerous for the fop leadership of the Tory Party.
This will just be more of the same.
Cameron and Osbornes inheritance tax plans would bnefit them to the tune of a million,something that labour will use.

[Tory Lady]

Statistics show that State Schools have a much poorer performance in every sphere, in comparison to Private Schools.
Private Schools spend less per pupil than State Schools, and have less facilities.
Surely these simple facts, supported by 14% of Parents who chooses to send their children to them, indicates they are an example to be emulated.
I suggest the conservatives move all schools into Private Management and Independent Status and make them free at the point of the Education. We are likely to save the Taxpayer one hell of a lot of money.
Good on you George.

[tim]

Tory Lady,
Actually all the state primaries in this area are excellent.
Have a look at the results.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/education/07/school_tables/primary_schools/html/207.stm

Whatever Georges decision is based on,it is unlikely to be educational achievement.

How does His choice score?

Well it can't do any better than the state schools.

Does it publish results?

[Comstock]

OK last one from me- I gotta go out "This is of course the descision of the Osborne family, and it isn't the business of anyone else."

I disagree, Bucks Tory, purely because George has *chosen* to enter public life and to seek to lead the rest of us.

That, IMHO, makes this fair game. I do feel sorry for the children if this turns nasty though

[MICHAEL MCGOUGH]

Not really news,certainly much less so than the machinations being undertaken by Cameron to secure places at a church school when he is outwith it's catchment area.Far better to pay up if you can afford to and ease the shortage of state places caused by mass unlimited unplanned for migration.

[David Belchamber]

Comstock, despite Blair and Brown's best efforts, this is still a free country and there is nothing illegal - or immoral - in choosing to educate children privately.
Since many independent schools are grammar schools that were forced by a Labour government to choose between staying in the maintained sector or going private, there are more similarities than differences between them.
You should remember (or perhaps learn for the first time) that over 70% of parents are (i) first time buyers of independent education (they intended to go state but found it too awful) and (ii) these parents are desperately trying to pay the school fees out of salaries. They are not, repeat not, wealthy people and some make huge sacrifices to put their children through independent schools and remember that some 600,000 pupils being educated privately saves taxpayers over £2.2bn a year
These same parents who have difficulty in keeping up with Brown's unacknowledged rate of inflation (i.e. twice or three times 2.1%) also pay their taxes and therefore contribute towards the cost of state education.
When I talk about independent schools, I am ignoring the 50 or so very large boarding schools, the so called "public schools", like Eton, Harrow, Winchester etc. Although outside this country they are rightly regarded as being some of the best schools in the world, they are not typical of the majority of independent schools that just try to give a good all-round education.
"All-round" is important; not only do they get top exam results (although as GCSE has now become so dumbed down about 50 now score nil in the league tables because they have moved to a more rigorous exam) and get a disporportionate number of students into universities, they also excell in sports, drama, music etc. I noticed the other day that a report on my old school remarked in passing that pupils had the choice of 15 sports last spring term.
Money is not the only or even the main point of difference between the systems; indeed in the Greater Manchester area, the independent grammar schools do not charge a great deal more than the cost of a state place and in independent schools, provision must be made to generate surpluses out of annual fees for major refurbishments and new building.
No, Comstock, what would benefit the country as a whole is for the government of the day to ignore class envy and other forms of misplaced envy and actually seek to work with independent schools to try and improve the general quality of education.
As one person suggested, the government could start by reintroducing the assisted places scheme that Blair scrapped as soon as he got in.

[sjm]

And in what way did Blair's children go to their local schools? He chose what he thought was best for his family, as has Osborne, as has Abbott.

We should be worrying about what is so wrong with State schools that parents are beggaring themselves to send their children into private education.

[sjm]

And in what way did Blair's children go to their local schools? He chose what he thought was best for his family, as has Osborne, as has Abbott.

We should be worrying about what is so wrong with State schools that parents are beggaring themselves to send their children into private education.

[tim]

As I say,the state Primaries near Osbornes house get fantastic results.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/education/07/school_tables/primary_schools/html/207.stm

This is unlikely to be about educational achievement.George is entitled to keep his reasons private if he chooses,but looking at the excellence of the state primaries near him,it is a bit odd.

Does Norland Park publish results?

[Ray Gillespie]

Get a life Cockstock - go and clutter up some other website with your rubbish.

What George Osborne does with his kids is nothing to do with any of us.

[bill]

Ray,
I think you should rephrase that.

Remeber the fuss the Tory press made about Leo Blairs MMR?

[Oh Dear.]

Story in tomorrows papers.

Norland.

Nearly all white school with Ham on the menu!

[Kentish Man]

This shouldn't be a story but for one thing - the Grammar Schools thing (yet again).

I have no problem with the Osborne sprogs going to private school - good for George & Mrs O. It's just a shame that he is denying a similar standard of education (and choice) for those living in areas with no Grammar schools.

[Andy Stidwill]

What people don't like is someone who sends their children to private schools, but then lectures them on how wonderful state comprehensive schools are and how people shouldn't hesitate to send their children to them. If that's true, why did they do differently?

[John Wilkin]

"Surely school is about getting rich kids to learn about the world and poor kids to aspire to better"

No Comstock - it's about teaching children to read and write. Preparation for life is about numeracy and literacy, not social engineering

[m dowding]

Dear, oh dear. Wealthy heir sends kids to private school, is in politics for whatever, not snout grubbing.
Now Labour ex-PM joins bank notepaper heading, state non-job earnings,lucrative "celebrity" speech giving on the back of Iraq war and soldiers lives, the list is endless. That is just one of the "champagne socialists!How soon will we have "Lord Steward Presser", Lord Hain and "don't I look gorgeous in ermine?" Mandy.
Sorry, Comstock, you can keep Molly Brown and that lot of ghastly morons who put dogma and failed socialism before the people of this country. My solution to education failings and useless social engineering meddling. Privatise the lot. As in everything in life, cream rises to the top. If you shake it around, however, the whole lot turns sour. H'mmmmmmmm.

[MICHAEL MCGOUGH]

"Story in tomorrows papers.
Norland.
Nearly all white school with Ham on the menu!"

The real story is that PORK,in all it's forms has been eradicated from state school meals for fear of offending muslims(it was never an issue for jews)and that Halal meat is fed to non muslim children without their/their parent's knowledge.

[Moral minority]

How can Osborne afford £2k per annum on an MP's salary?

Before his election, Osborne had only worked as an adviser at CCHQ and in Whitehall and cannot have earned a personal fortune to fund substantial deposits on his houses in Tatton and London, both millionaire areas. He must be using the family fortune or his Parliamentary allowances to fund his children's education and homes, either to pay the mortgages or pay for them outright.

Osborne is just a spoilt trustafarian who lives the life of a multimillionaire without have earned the right to do so. We are back to the pre-Thatcher Tory Party of inherited wealth and privelege. The problem is that the trustafarians such as Dave and Boy George can afford high taxes unlike "ordinary" families. When Osborne talks about matching Labour's spending levels and Dave lectures traditional Tories on sharing, i.e. stealing, the proceeds of growth, I reach for the sick bag.

The Conservative Party must be the party of meritocracy, rather than the Bullingdon Club elite, if is to return to Government. Cameron must replace Osborne, a political liability, as Shadow Chancellor with William Hague (who went to a comprehensive). In fact, most of friends and relatives would prefer Hague as Leader.

[RobD]

Some people seem to be reacting as if George were a Labour minister not a Conservative shadow minister. We as conservatives believe in choice, if we get into power Osbpourne will be working with Gove to bring some of that choice back to parents not as fortunate as himself. We may not be promising to build more Grammars but we do have some excellent policies to give parents more choice. Personally I would like to see us bring back assisted places as quickly as Blair got rid of them, I hope this will be one of the bold policies we will see before the election.

However even if we succeed in improving schooling for everyone I would still defend the right of the next generation of Tory MPs to send their children to private school. If they think they get something a little different by paying why shouldn't they be allowed to? Apart from anything else they are making the state schools less crowded while providing more than their fair share of tax to educate those who remain, it seems like a win-win to me and only the most socialist idealists could disagree.

[tim]

Nobodys answered why Osborne has chosen to ignore fantastic state schools.
Norland Park results unavailable.

[Michael Rutherford]

I don't see the problem. When a Labour MP like Diane Abbott does it it's different, because she's standing on an anti-private school platform and telling all other parents they should be ashamed. She is a hypocrit.

Osbourne has never said private schools should be banned. In Britain we have the option of state schools and private schools and Osbourne has made use of that option.

[Ahmed Shah Masood]

The fees are £11,000, what will the extras cost? I bet the whole package comes closer to £40,000 for the pair. How can a man with that much money and such a protected background claim to be in touch with the needs of the ordinary person in the street?

[tim]

But what Osborne has said,in effect given the excellence of the State Primaries in his area,is.

"No matter how good the state option is,I will not use it"

[Dave]

There's more than the usual number of Labour astroturfers on here today.

Summat's got 'em rattled!

[Happy Tory]

The only way forward for this country is to implement our proposed education policies, which will dramatically improve standards within our schools in a very short time. Then people won't want to waste their money on private schools. At the moment, its worth paying because private schools do very often provide better education. When we've done what needs doing, the private sector will shrink of its own accord. And that will be great for all of us.

We have the answer. We've just got to get in to make it happen.

[John Wilkin]

Nobody's answered why Osborne has chosen to ignore fantastic state schools.
Norland Park results unavailable.

Tim, only the man himself can answer that, and he's perfectly entitled to say that it's nobody else's business.

[Yet Another Anon]

All this fuss about what schools politicians are sending their children to or where they get medical treatment - that's for them to decide so long as they pay for it out of their own salaries.

[Edward Huxley]

You don`t do as I do, you do as I say.

[Ash Faulkner]

Comstock:

"Ash said "The fact is private schools are generally far better than state ones." In terms of what? If you are talking about preperation for life, I'm not so sure. OK you could make a case that a private school equals nine GCSEs, a good comp eight, an average comp seven and a sink comp only five, but that doesn't equal preperation for life. Surely school is about getting rich kids to learn about the world and poor kids to aspire to better....."

If comprehensive schools were performing as well as that, there wouldn't be so much of an issue. The national average is for a school to get 50% of their pupils getting five GCSEs grades A to C, including English and Maths. In my town, the ranking goes like this: Grammar schools - 97-100%; private schools 70-80%; church school - 50%; comprehensive schools - 25-33%. Comprehensive schools are not churning out kids with eight and seven GCSEs. I don't deny there are good comprehensives, as there are bad grammar and private schools, but the gap between the two is widening and not surprising in the slightest.

As for the social education from private schools, or lack thereof, that is a point constantly levelled against them. It may be true, but frankly, when I've had a heart attack, I want a doctor who knows how to fix it, not one who understands what it's like to live on a council estate. The primary role of schools is to educate and train. The secondary role is certainly to provide some sort of social education, but not at the expense of the first.

"I actually have some sympathy for lower middle class parents who scrimp and save to send their kids to private school- but that doesn't make it right..."

How on earth is it wrong? For the record, I'm 17, upper sixth of a grammar school. My brother is 15, attends the church school. I'm trying to convince my parents (who are divorced and both lower-middle class, C1s) to send my sister, 7, to the grammar school. The church school my brother attends is a mess. The primary factor is that there is no discipline: kids wandering around with their shirts out, ties not done up, pushing and shoving. My brother is a trouble-causer as it is, and is presently failing his GCSEs - including English. As I said above, only half of the pupils at his school leave with five GCSEs - and that's the national average! The local comps are worse; at the better one, two thirds leave without five GCSEs, at the worst, three quarters don't.

The education system in this country is a mess. This is not some academic point, this is a reality. All these statistics I'm throwing are not little dots on a graph, they are real people. Three quarters of the pupils at one school here leave with less than five GCSEs. Just stop and think about that for a moment, and then hopefully you'll understand why any parent with the money would get their children out of this rotten system as soon as they can.

[IRJMilne]

The fact which most strikes me is that Mr Osborne himself went to this school. Jolly good reason to send his own children there if it was a decent place then and seems decent now.

I have no idea how private education is "vile". Seems like a good thing to me. I presume Comstock also believes that tutors are vile, and that helping your children with their homework is vile, taking them to visit interesting places, dressing them in decent clothes, taking them to church, and other ways people try to educate, improve, and help their children are all also "vile".

[Andrew S]

I for one would like to know how many Labour MPs send their kids to private schools.
It wouldn't surprise me if quite a few did.

At the end of the day, no matter how you feel about George Osbourne sending his kids to a private school, he is doing what he believes is best for his children and I respect him for that. Who the hell cares?!?!?!

[Rod Sellers]

Osbourne is absolutely right in his decision but like all elected politicians he has from time to time mouth the usual rubbish about equality, excellence for all etc.

If we could drop all the cant from political pronouncements, there would be more honest debate about the realities of life. Life is not fair - people are not equal and nobody - including Mother Teressa - does 'out for nowt'

Everyone has a self interest and an obligation as a logical human being to to the best for yourself and your family and then worry about the rest.

[Stefan]

Good for him. Why subject his children to the inadequacies of state education, both academic and social?

[tim]

The local state schools are fantastic,so what is he buying?

[Traditional Tory]

As much as I detest Osborne I have more respect for his decision - which puts the interests of his children before political pointscoring - than I have for Cameron's despicable grandstanding.

[gingeral]

Politicians' young children should not be used for petty political point scoring - period! It should be beneath all dignified people. Osborne, or anyone else that matter, should be able to choose to send their children to the best school available, whether state or private, and good for him for doing that and not giving a stuff about any bad headlines! His kids come first.

[passing leftie]

This is absolutely consistent with his Conservative ideology, and is not hypocritical.

[Free Marketeer]

Osbourne favours one system for the masses but a different system for his own children. Hmmm, it looks like we're still On The Road To Serfdom.

[Cllr Nicholas Bennett]

In a free society people should be free to decide where their children educated. What sort of society would be created if people where prevented from spending their money on important matters like education and health? If we created a society where people are forbidden to spend their money on the important things in life we are, in effect, saying that people may only spend their money on consumerable goods.

If the independent sector was banned, schools would up sticks to Southern Ireland and to Europe. Would those who support the abolition of independent schools then try to introduce travel controls to prevent children being educated abroad?

As John Stuart Mill observed in 'On Liberty', "That the whole or any large part of the education of the people should be in State hands, I go as far anybody in deprecating...A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another....An education established and controlled by the State should only exist, if it exists at all, as one of among many competing experiments carried on for the purpose of example and stimulus to keep up to a certain standard of excellence".

Whilst one need not go as far as the Liberal Mill, a Conservative Government should be radical and look to see how such choices can be widened as in the 1980s when the Assisted Places Scheme was set up. We should be looking at a variety of ways of extending choice, vouchers, grants to parent groups to set up free independent schools etc.

The existence of a larger and more broadly based range of choices would provide a stimulus to the State sector to improve or find that parents opted out of the sector.

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

"I disagree, Bucks Tory, purely because George has *chosen* to enter public life and to seek to lead the rest of us.

That, IMHO, makes this fair game. I do feel sorry for the children if this turns nasty though"

Comstock. I do not understand where you are going with this.
Even if George Osborne has chosen to enter public life, it is not up to us to pass judgement upon him for doing what he beleives is right for his children.

The problem in today's society is not that an extremly small part of the population can chose schools like George Osborne, but that so many have no other choice than whatever the state has to offer. The pupils on deprived inner-city schools would not be any better off if George Osborne had decided to send his children there.

[David Belchamber]

I agree with you, Nicholas at 18.09:

"We should be looking at a variety of ways of extending choice, vouchers, grants to parent groups to set up free independent schools etc".

In my post at 10.25, I added a few more arguments and suggested that we looked at the many ways in which independent schools could help the state system, though I cannot see that any teaching union or left-leaning teachers would dare admit that they are capable of doing so.

One problem is that until selection is debated sensibly and without bias, the chances of making radical improvements in academic standards are poor.

Players like Kevin Pieterson and Michael Vaughan did not get into the England cricket team by going through a similar system in sport to comprehensive schools. They went through the cricketing equivalent of a grammar school, with selection at various stages, teaching and testing. It is a hard school but, if it is excellence you want, it is necessary.

Universities must continue to insist on only admitting high grade applicants; it is not for them to lower their standards. If they do so, we will rapidly become a second class nation.

[clive elliot]

If you educate your children privately, like George Osborne and Diane Abbott, you are doing the rest of us a favour. You are saving taxpayer's money. You are paying twice over. You are to be applauded.

Well done George and Diane. Nothing to be ashamed of. Quite the reverse!

[David Lindsay]

Are private schools any good?

The debate is raging about whether fee-paying schools should be charities. But nobody ever asks whether such schools are really all that good. They are prominent among the critics of the gravely deficient and defective examination system. Yet their own appeal is based on being exceptionally good within that system.

If the exams are educationally questionable, then being good at putting people through them cannot be said to prove that a school is a centre of academic excellence. If anything, it would seem to suggest the opposite. And one does have to question whether the people making these sales pitches are really very intelligent at all.

Abolishing these schools’ charitable status might close a few of them. But many more would simply jack up their fees to astronomical levels, even when compared to what they already charge. They would also abolish such scholarships and bursaries as they still have (full fees bursaries are now practically unheard of). So nothing would really be achieved.

Yet those schools are desperate to retain that status, for reasons lost on me. So they are suggesting that they might sponsor City Academies. This would involve their teachers telling their state school counterparts how to do their jobs. Again, it is simply presupposed that the private school teachers are better teachers, that their schools are better schools.

When is anyone going to take this on? Where are the articles and documentaries about private schools and their bullying? Or the highly variable quality of their teaching? Or their Head Teachers who are in fact proprietors? Or their entrance exams for five-year-olds? Or their decidedly questionable employment practices? Or the cosy relationships of a few of them with Oxbridge admissions tutors? (Although who really cares about Oxbridge, anyway?) Or the fact that the rest are selling a pup?

[BexleyTory]

When you send your children to a private school you are not saving the taxpayer. You are in fact entrenching into childrens hearts that a better education is the reserve of the rich. I am a working class Conservative supporter but I still believe the Grammar School system is a much better way of selecting children than by their parents wealth! Many Tories i'm sure will support George Osbourne in his decision but I doubt that most of the British public will be so sympathetic!

[John Ionides]

Bexley Tory, quite clearly whe you send a child to independent school you are saving the taxpayer, because otherwise the state would have to stump up the extra school place for that child's education. Therefore, there is a huge financial incentive for the government not to force lots of independent schools to close because it would struggle to find the extra cash for all the places that would be required in the state system as a result. Charitable status seems like a reasonable way of representing the contibution independent schools make to lowering government expenditure, even before you take into account the community work that a number of them undertake.

Personally I like the ideals of the Grammar system although the case for streaming within schools instead is good. My only concern is that streaming is easily abolished, while if you have Grammar schools then any future government would have much more difficulty closing them down.

Having said that, I think that all the work that Willetts and Gove have put into our current policy is extremely good, and their proposals do offer the best mechanism for improving schooling across the board.

[Sally Roberts]

we Conservatives believe in choice! So what is wrong with George and Frances Osborne choosing any form of education they wish for their children?

[Sally Roberts]

"The real story is that PORK,in all it's forms has been eradicated from state school meals for fear of offending muslims(it was never an issue for jews)and that Halal meat is fed to non muslim children without their/their parent's knowledge."

This is absolutely right - the eating or not eating of pork has never been a big issues for Jews and in fact many Jewish families do not "keep kosher", particularly amongst the Reform tradition. For those who do avoid pork - it is not for the same reasons as Muslims. Jews do not eat it because the pig is a hoofed animal - rather like the horse which we don't eat either!
Muslims regard the pig as intrinsically "unclean" - we don't. I like Piggies actually and they are highly intelligent animals!

[passing leftie]

If at least 50%, and preferably 80% of the pupils in a public school had to be selected at random from all applicants, and the school paid their fees, I'd be in favour of them.

[John Ionides]

Yes, well passing leftie, people with your way of thinking have had control of the state education system for quite a while now, and look what a mess they have made of it.

[David Belchamber]

"Yet those schools are desperate to retain that status, for reasons lost on me".

Not really, David Lindsay at 00.47. As various people have pointed out, the tax breaks that charitable status gives schools (about £100M a year) is outweighed 3 to 1 by the scholarships and bursaries they award. Ignoring the big famous boarding schools, most of the best independent schools are virtually fee-charging grammar schools; they have the same ethos of genuinely high academic standards and they seek to give an all-round education i.e. big emphasis on sport, drama, music, community service etc.

"If at least 50%, and preferably 80% of the pupils in a public school had to be selected at random from all applicants, and the school paid their fees"

Passing leftie at 09.35, I partially agree with the first bit but you should ask Blair or Brown why they immediately axed the assisted places scheme which the independent schools welcomed, as it went some of the way to achieving what you ask for.
The second bit about the fees is, you must realise, unfair and impractical, as over 70% of parents make big sacrifices to pay the fees.

As these schools are saving the taxpayer over £2bn a year, the state should pay for the scheme.

[James Maskell]

Im not too fussed about the class jealousy over private schools. I quite agree with Sally Roberts. Im never going to be able to afford to send a kid to private school, but Im not going to have a hissy fit about it. Just get on with making sure your child gets a decent education, wherever it might be. State education doesnt have to mean bad education.

[Traditional Tory]

Are private schools any good?

The debate is raging about whether fee-paying schools should be charities. But nobody ever asks whether such schools are really all that good.

A peculiarly ignorant chip-on-the-shoulder rant.

My school - a minor public school - has produced some extraordinarily successful individuals. A couple of my form-mates are household names.

While I cannot count myself part of this elite I can at least spell and I have a command of the Queen's English. I can also calculate the shopping bill in my head.

Which is more than can be said about the juvenile delinquents who attend the comprehensive school at which my wife works; and don't blame her. She only teaches cookery.

[Londoner]

I agree that this is a non-story. The sensational thing would have been if the family of a Tory baronet's son, with lots of money and no previous known history of ever having got the taxpayer to pay for their school education, suddenly abandoned their family traditions and went to State schools for political reasons. It's bad enough that some talented people are prevented from becoming Labour MPs because they won't use their children as political totems, but if prominent Tory MPs had to do the same we really would be in a pickle.

Incidentally, Cameron has never said that he won't switch any of his children to the private sector later; he has just chosen a Church of England primary for one or two of them to start in.

Personally, if all the senior Shadow Cabinet suddenly started using State schools exclusively - I would find that a very good reason to distrust them. It would mean that collectively they had taken leave of normal conservative instincts and inclinations.

The real scandal is rich people sending their children to State schools and then supporting higher tax on the rich (many of whom are not actually rich in terms of disposable income because of the ever increasing cost of school fees which they themselves, as rich socialists, do not pay). My solution is to have a sliding scale of paying for State schools up to their full cost for parents with a household income of above, say, £150,000 a year (depending on the number of children). No-one with an income of above £100,000 should get their children's education completely for free. Our Labour Party friends can still show their commitment to the State sector if they want by paying these fees (which would benefit local education) rather than going independent. But if this led to more of these so-called socialists going independent - then it would show that many of them are really just interested in having more money for their houses in Tuscany. Not paying school fees gives such people an entirely false impression of how well off a family is with an income of £100,000, £200,000 or even £300,000 a year (depending on how many children you have).

If there were an outcry about the cost on those who don't pay fees now, one could consider tax relief up to a cap on all education costs, whether State or private.

[John Ionides]

Trad T,

Nice to find myself agreeing with you :-)

I think the point you make about your successful classmates (assuming that they didn't become household names by marrying a footballer etc., but rather by achiveing something) is important. One of the key failures of the current state system is the fact that increasingly those rising to the top of their professions came through the independent schooling system. As far as the next generation of leaders is concerned, the current system has comprehensively failed; a poor bright kid today is less likely to rise through the ranks than they were in the past. This is course shouldn't be much of a surprise given the prevailing orthodoxy within much of the state system that emphasises bringing the less able up to the mean at the expense of encouraging the most able to flourish (all in the name of equality, obviously).

And of course if people do escape and find a good education outside the state system, our good socialist friends don't rejoice over a kid well brought up, but just look on jealously and try to drag them back down. Says it all, really.

[Comstock]

Evenin' all- wow folks have come at me from all angles over t'weekend!!!

Hello Ray Gillespie. Most people misread my nickname as 'cornstock', so that is a cool new variation. I have a life, thanks :)

( Sticks and stones may break my bones, etc)

IRJ Milne, I certainly believe taking children to church is wrong because religion should be an adult decision- but that is a whole other debate!

Bucks Tory said "Comstock. I do not understand where you are going with this.
Even if George Osborne has chosen to enter public life, it is not up to us to pass judgement upon him for doing what he beleives is right for his children."

Maybe not, but it *is* up to us to pass judgement on his hypocrisy in putting himself forward for the 2nd most important political job in the land whilst using his wealth to opt out of the public sector he seeks to control.

"No Comstock - it's about teaching children to read and write. Preparation for life is about numeracy and literacy, not social engineering"

No doubt you see schools as no more than exam factories, John Wilkin. Shame.

Ash Faulkener, you talk and argue most confidently for someone of 17, but saying "hopefully you'll understand why any parent with the money would get their children out of this rotten system as soon as they can."

I made it quite clear I already understood this. I can also understand a desperate poor man who turns to crime to feed his kids. It doesn't make either right.

[Chad Noble]

Hi Comstock,

Which essential goods and services do you think should *not* be provided exclusively by the State?

[RobinClash]

Sally Roberts
For those who do avoid pork - it is not for the same reasons as Muslims. Jews do not eat it because the pig is a hoofed animal - rather like the horse which we don't eat either!

I have no idea why eating port has entered this thread, but erm, I believe that both sheep/goats and cattle/beef have hooves, as do deer/venison. What am I missing?

[Victor, NW Kent]

Comstock

I suggest that what is wrong with the state education system and with many other aspects of our society is the prevalence of half-baked notions like yours.

You might be able to use simple observation to be able to understand that the worst educated people overlap considerably the group which has most problems in fitting into civilised society.

Conversely, the better educated people are the more likely the will be to be able to find jobs, pay tax and be honest rather than criminal.

I note that you have no children so it is no surprise that you are unable to appreciate that parents should wish the best for their offspring. That is a selfless instinct, not a selfish one.

[Mark Fulford]

Maybe not, but it *is* up to us to pass judgement on his hypocrisy in putting himself forward for the 2nd most important political job in the land whilst using his wealth to opt out of the public sector he seeks to control.

It’s only Labour MPs who are hypocritical about private education.

People thrive on choice and freedom -- including the freedom to spend their money where they want. It’s lowest common denominator policy to say person B cannot have private education because person A cannot afford the same choice.

A politician doesn’t have to directly use the services they control in order to be effective. By your argument childless MPs should be excluded from anything to do with childcare, young MPs from anything to do with pensions, Scottish MPs from anything to do with England, urban MPs from anything to do with the countryside, etc.

[John Ionides]

Robin,

I was similarly puzzled (my recollection from schooldays was that edibility revolved around whether the hoof is cloven or not ...) but my (Jewish) wife tells me that the animal in question has to eat grass (well, technically, chew the cud) too before it is deemed edible.

[Comstock]

Hi, Chad...."Which essential goods and services do you think should *not* be provided exclusively by the State?"...... flippin heck that is a damn broad question! OK I'll have a go.......

Food for sure (I'd hate to see soviet style state farms).

Housing (I oppose council houses being sold, but forcing everyone to be a tennant of the state would be crazy).

Clothing.

Now it depends what we are classing as essential. Some consumer goods are borderline 'essential' in the sense they are 'essential' to the modern world. I'd hate to see the state make watches or bicycles or fridges, so in terms of 'goods', probably most of them!

I love the BBC, but would hate to see a state monopoly on broadcasting.

As for the 80s privatisations, even if I had the power I wouldn't be convinced about renationalising telecoms, I think the whole business has changed so much since the GPO days the genie could never fit back in the bottle. Ditto airlines.

[RobinClash]

John Ionides

As always your wife is correct, as pigs, sheep, and cattle have cloven feet, (2 x toes), but pigs are not rumenants.

The "real" reason pork was a bad idea >2,000 years ago is because pork carries parasites, such as flukes. In a hot country such as the middle east, it was difficult if not impossible to cure pork adequatley.

End of biology class, and hopefully back to politics.

[Comstock]

Hello Mark "by your argument childless MPs should be excluded from anything to do with childcare"
I think it *would* be good if people making decisions on that had children.
" young MPs from anything to do with pensions,"
No,different kettle of fish pensions affect us all eventually and indirectly most of us now if we have parents still alive.

" Scottish MPs from anything to do with England"
OK it been a long weekend, I'm knackered and no way am I touching the West Lothian question!!!

" urban MPs from anything to do with the countryside, etc."

Again I *do* think there is a problem with MPs from urban (or more likely suburban) backgrounds not understanding the worries of the Welsh hill farmer or the Highland crofter.I think the strength of PC and the SNP in some of those areas has as much to do with this fact as true 'nationalism', and I think the Liberals do well in Cornwall for similar reasons.

And now I'm so tired I'm about asleep at the keyboard and a country mile off topic........I wonder what this 'off' button does???

[John Ionides]

Robin,

And there was me thinking that it was because pork is hard to distinguish from human flesh so it made good sense to ban "pork" when you had a whole lot of extremely hungry people wandering around a desert ....

Comstock, no mention of health on your list of government-only services. I am surprised.

[Editor]

Can we get back on topic please!?

[Chad Noble]

Thanks Comstock.

Personally I think the State should be a safety net to help those who cannot afford a deemed core service, not the exclusive provider of any service in itself.

So really George Osborne should be applauded for not extracting 'free' services from the State when he is perfectly capable of funding his children's education.

I can't see how George paying for a service he can comfortably afford instead of unnecessarily turning to the State for help is in anyway incompatible with him seeking the very best for those who do fall within that safety net.

That sounds more like someone wanting to ensure that those less fortunate than his kids, get better opportunities too.

[Londoner]

Chad

You have stated the accepted conservative (and in its proper sense, liberal) position. Comstock, being neither conservative or, it seems, liberal, does not accept this. But so far as our Party is concerned, this is a non-story. So far as quite a proportion of us is concerned, it is to Osborne's credit.

[Comstock]

"Can we get back on topic please!?"

Sorry Editor, my fault. I do ramble at times!

I think we've about done this to death anyway.

[atory friend]

perhaps someone should point out that

1 gordon brown's brother removed his kids from the labour mp's state school of choice in eaton square and put them in private school - one to westminster cathedral choir school the other to westminster under school.

2 both of gordon's nephews are down to go to eton!!!