Gove is first Tory education secretary to send child to state secondary school

Spoiler

I don't get why their is a huge rush of congratulations. At the end of the day he's sending his well-provided-for offspring to an outstanding selective christian school. How fortunate is that, I wish all parents were so lucky.
Also this doesn't excuse the fact that many of his reforms and planned ones have been awful, for example he is trying to get rid of A levels and make it into one exam at the end of 2 years, contrary to Oxbridge advice.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/04/michael-gove-education-secretary-child-state-secondary-school?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Fair enough many politicians send their kids to private schools, but this school is not exactly a "bog standard comprehensive" that many of you may had to go to and therefore he has very little basis to justify his credibility in that sense as he seems to be attacking those "bog standard" schools the most.

Also for the record if I was the education secretary and I was making outlandish reforms like his to bog standard state schools (some mentioned above), then if I wanted to show my credibility and back up my words I would send my child to that "bog standard" school, not some "selective outstanding chrisitan" school, then have the media lick my ass and claim to be some hero to justify the destruction of the state education system, which affects the poorest the post.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 1

username1039383

Gove is an attention whore.

Reply 2

xoxAngel_Kxox

To be honest, I fail to see why anyone complains about where politicians send their children to school anyway. I mean, if it was a choice between the lower end comprehensives with guns, drugs, high failure rates and anti social behaviour, I'm sure ALL parents would choose to send their children to a private school if that was the nearest available, better alternative - if they could afford it.

Every single parent aims to get the best that they possibly can for their child. Nobody picks a sub standard education by choice, and there's no reason that politicians should be expected to take one for the team to prove they're in touch with the people. In my opinion, if they make their child's education suffer for some stupid career enhancing publicity stunt that's worse.

Reply 3

User995789

Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox

No it should be law that the education secretary should send their child to a state school. After all it is they who are responsible for the "festering **** hole" of an education system.
Why should poor people suffer at the expense of the very person who claims to be increasing social mobility and improving education "for all".
Some of the poorest people in our society made the greatest contribution thanks to good state schools.

Reply 4

xoxAngel_Kxox

Original post by Blueray2

Should the health minister always use the NHS if s/he can afford to go private?
Should the transport secretary always get the tube/bus despite being able to afford a private car?
Should the children of all Barclay's employees open their first bank accounts with Barclay's?
Should the leader of our local council buy books from the supermarket instead of using our dwindling, free library services?

Sadly, in all areas, money talks. In this country we're very lucky that every child gets the chance of an education, and every individual gets the chance of healthcare. That doesn't mean that there aren't better, more costly alternatives out there - nor does it mean that you have to be a user of such a service to be in charge of it.

Reply 5

User995789

Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox

No because its all relatively speaking.
No for the transport sec as he has security issues.
No on the council leader because they aren't exactly that rich depending on the council area.
And no on the Barclay's because that creates a monopoly which is illegal.

Either way i'm sure you agree its a publicity stunt and shouldn't overshadow his crap work.

Reply 6

xoxAngel_Kxox

Original post by Blueray2

Yeah I said it was a publicity stunt in my first post. Kids should be kept out of political agenda!

Reply 7

The_Dragonborn

My dad told me that once, A-levels were examined at the end of the two years. While it may seem absurd and difficult to us (it probably is more difficult), the students just accepted it at the time. The grades were lower, but that meant that, for example, having a C was really something. Now, because of the changes, A-levels are examined differently (from then) and students are achieving higher grades, making it more difficult for universities to differentiate between applicants.