Controvery surrounds Ruth Kelly
Disability in the news over the past day or so, as former education secretary Ruth Kelly has faced criticism for choosing to to a £15,000 a year private school. The cabinet minister's son has "particular and substantial learning difficulties", reported to be dyslexia, and she decided that the state schools near the family's East London home had inadequate provision for her son. However, the school that Ms Kelly has selected describes itself as the only preparatory school in the UK where the main aim is to help children with learning difficulties pass exams for top public schools such as Winchester, Eton and Harrow. Meanwhile, Ruth Kelly's local education authority, Tower Hamlets, has not endorsed the decision, claiming that they have a strong record in special needs education - with six special needs schools being within reach of the Kelly family home, and OFSTED reports on nearby primary schools with special needs provision rating them as good, excellent or outstanding.
• The of Ruth Kelly's statement about her son's education.
Needless to say, the minister's decision has proven very controversial. Critics say her move is a huge snub to the millions of parents who have children with special educational needs but cannot afford to send them to expensive private schools. Within her own party, state education for all children is a , and she has been strongly rebuked for her choice. Veteran backbencher Austin Mitchell said: "We should expect Labour ministers to put their children through the state system. I deplore others transferring their children out to go private".
Perhaps slightly embarrassing for Ms Kelly is that, unlike in previous cases where senior Labour figures have chosen private education for their children, on this occasion she has received support from across the political divide. Conservative leader , whose son has cerebral palsy but attends a state special needs school, said: "We all have to make the decisions as parents first, not as politicians. Ruth Kelly is a parent first and foremost".
What's your opinion on this story? Is Ruth Kelly doing the right thing? Should she have kept her son in the state education special needs system? And has her son's impairment caused her to perhaps be treated with more understanding or even leniency over her decision than her government colleagues who made similar choices in the past? Share your views in the comments.
Comments
I think she made the right decision. I think it's ridiculous for other people to tell her what she should do with her own child, as long as she's paying the price. As someone mentioned, people are thinking of her decision in political terms. She needs, as a mother, to think of it as doing the best she can to meet the needs of her child. Just because other parents can't afford it, she should not keep her child from the school she thinks best. Some parents can't afford the best organic top-level diet -- does that mean they should feed their kids an indequate diet because some parents can't afford it? I don't think so. All you should do in both cases, is do whatever you can to work toward more parents having more choices, but the bottom line is -- use what resources you do have to do what is best for your child.
I think there is a hypocrasy in Ms Kellys actions. As a one time Labour Education Minister and in her present post she has defended Labours response to the recent all party report which strongly cndemned the Special needs provision in this country as being largely unfit for the purpose and failing special children.
By taking these steps Ms Kelly is showing that what as parents of special needs children already know that the system is in melt down due to underfunding and government incompetence.
Dont patronise us by saying this was a mother doing her best for her child, its a political rat jumping a ship she has said is sea worthy and knows it isnt.
I am appauled by her actions and the fact that all parties seem to be ignoring this issue, no party seems to have a grasp of inclusion in this country!
Ruth Kelly's hypocrisy results not from her choice of private as against state
schooling, it results from the absence of care towards special education that
she demonstrated whilst Education Secretary and continues to demonstrate as
part of a government that sees the education of the majority as an investment
but special education as a bottomless pit.
Both Westminster and Holyrood governments have comprehensively failed to
provide the legislative and systemic structure that would make competent and
appropriate educational provision for children with Special Educational
Needs. They will both wax lyrical about how educational standards are
improving, but omit to mention that no standards exist across much of special
education, specifically in the education of autistic children. There is no
mandatory qualification for teachers of children with any Special Educational
Needs (SEN), and no specific teaching qualification exists for those who teach
children with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD).
Compare such an absence of investment in the lives of disabled children with (in a Scottish context, but similar examples no doubt exist in the rest of the UK):-
the 2 billion spent on the McCrone deal on teachers' pay and conditions, 115 million on community schools, 80 million on `enterprise education`, 37.5 million on instrumental music tuition for primary children (i.e. teaching children how to play the recorder very badly), 100 hours of training for primary teachers in how to teach
P.E. ..... and what do children with an ASD get? Teachers who, at best, have
5 hours of unassessed training supplied by an autism charity.
The worst thing about Ruth Kelly's abandonment of the state sector for her son
is that, so often, parents like me are accused of wanting `the best` or a
`Rolls-Royce` service for our children, when all we want are some basic
rights for our children, instead of endlessly having to fight the system.
There is, in reality, an overwhelming disincentive to supply a good standard
of education that is appropriate to the needs of children with SEN, because
parents would then demand that standard.
ya mum
I don't understand why everyone thinks it is ok to have one set of principles when you are at work and another when you are at home. In saying "don't judge me as a politician, judge me as a mother" is Ruth Kelly not actually saying that when the chips are down you should just do what you want, not what you said you beleived in? This is in fact the very definition of hypocrisy.
My son has cp and specfic learning difficulities: under the current educational system it took a year to get a Statement - how nice it would have been to be able to bypass all the anxiety, worry and stress by buying my way out of this problem. What a relief it would be for me not to look towards the future (ie secondary school) with more worry. Do children with specific learning difficulties get into the the better state secondary schools? Probably not ... Ultimately this is about class: Ruth Kelly wants her son to go to a good secondary school and she is fortunate enough to be able to afford 15k a year to get that. But how she can show her face at work (where she puts on the cloak of her political principles) I simply don't know!