Ruth Kelly is, according ot one national newspaper today, sending her child to a private school. As a former education secretary responsible for the quality of schooling across the UK, does that make her a hypocrite of a good mother ?
My view is that if she was proud of what Labour had done for schools and what she had done for schools, then there is no need for her kids to got to private schools.
I guess though that for those who are not religious or rich, they will never have to make that choice. Lucky old Ruth !
My view is that if she was proud of what Labour had done for schools and what she had done for schools, then there is no need for her kids to got to private schools.
I guess though that for those who are not religious or rich, they will never have to make that choice. Lucky old Ruth !
7 comments:
She is both.
She is a hypocrite, especially as she's from the party which insisted upon comprehensive education and 'equality'.
However, the state of state education is lamentable. If I had children and could afford it I would send my children to a private school, I want the best for them, and the state sector, for the most part, cannot provide that...
I’m not sure she is a hypocrite at all. It would be impossible for the public sector to provide education for every child at the same level of quality as could be afforded by the richest people in society. Mrs. Kelly is taking advantage of her six figure salary to provide for her children. I don’t think that we should blame her for that.
That Labour is failing to provide decent education for all children is irrelevant to this issue (though not to the thousands of children leaving school without qualifications). Even if the government were providing good education for all, a wealthy parent could always improve upon it with private provision.
As a teacher I do hate these balnket quotes "the state of state education is lamentable".
Utter poppycock, to put it politely. You can always use one worst case scenario to try and make an argument, but to damn everyone is like daming all TOries for being rich or damning all Lib Dems for wearing sandals or damning all footballers as rich and ignorant.
The education I give as a teacher is much, MUCH better than the one I received as a pupil myself. and I did alright for myself.
The school Ruth Kelly is using caters for her child's special needs and has been chosen with the co-operation of her local education authority. It is long established practice for an LEA to work with the private sector on special needs provision.
Sarah,
This is slightly diingenuous. Whilst the LEA might use this school, what is not clear at all is if the LEA, in this case, would have referred Mrs Kelly's son to the school in question or whether they assessed his needs could be catered for in the state system by the LEA itself.
Mrs Kelly has been VERY vague on this important point, and your comment merely repeats her comments.
The BIG question. If Mrs Kelly had not got the £15,000 to send her son there, would he be going ?
Surprise surprise. Catholic Herald report jumps to defence of Opus Deii MP.
Hardly the words you expect from a journalist.
I would choose my words more carefully, if I were you, Mr. Starling.
The education you give may be excellent but If your schools is not in pole position via the league of crucifixion, then as a consequence, the remaining education delivered by colleagues, is sub-standard.
Post a Comment