FMS-Blog : The Wildly Whimsical, Mostly Musical WebLog
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Privately Educated Kelly
Anyone who knows me or who has read a few of my blogs will not be surprised to hear that I'm not in favour of private schooling that places those children from the wealthiest families at a distinct advantage in life. My belief is that a high standard of education should be free to everyone and so there should be no need for the rich to push their own kids forward by throwing money at the problem. But, the reality is that, due to the way in which they're funded, private schools are able to equip themselves better than their state equivilents and have the ability to buy in the best teaching and support staff available. This situation is clearly unacceptable to anyone of social conscience but it exists nevertheless.
In the current economic climate in Britain, thousands of parents now have greater choice as to where their children should be educated. As well as many wonderful state schools, parents can get their kids into private schools either by winning grants (by putting their children through entrance exams) or by stumping up the money to pay for them to go to one of the 'better' pay-as-you-go schools. I stand by any parents' right to do this; as long as these options are open to them there is no reason why they shouldn't take advantage of them, even if this ultimately has a negative impact on the development of their children. However, when Ruth Kelly stands up and publicly admits to sending one of her children to a private school the question is not so much whether she has the right as the parent to do this but actually how successful she was as education secretary if she now feels personally that the state schooling system isn't good enough for her brood.
This idea that the reason Kelly feels it right to send her child to a private school because this one of her offspring has a special educational need simply doesn't wash. She of all people could tell you that for some time there has been an initiative in the state school system to include all children in mainstream education, including those with SEN's such as EBD's (emotional and behavioural difficulties) and learning difficulties such as dyslexia. Through a system of statementing, schools can apply for additional support from the local authority to be able to properly educate any child, whatever their SEN. Failing this, there are still many schools of excellence in the state system that cater for those who are most badly affected by SENs. As far as I can see, then, Ruth Kelly's decision to send her child to a private school is tantamount to saying that the state system is not good enough and / or is not equipped to deal fully with her child's educational requirements. What, then, I ask myself was she doing in her role of Education Secretary? Clearly, if she herself feels that the state system cannot adequately educate her children then surely it is also failing many other families, and particularly those who cannot afford to simply send their children to private establishments instead.
In the current economic climate in Britain, thousands of parents now have greater choice as to where their children should be educated. As well as many wonderful state schools, parents can get their kids into private schools either by winning grants (by putting their children through entrance exams) or by stumping up the money to pay for them to go to one of the 'better' pay-as-you-go schools. I stand by any parents' right to do this; as long as these options are open to them there is no reason why they shouldn't take advantage of them, even if this ultimately has a negative impact on the development of their children. However, when Ruth Kelly stands up and publicly admits to sending one of her children to a private school the question is not so much whether she has the right as the parent to do this but actually how successful she was as education secretary if she now feels personally that the state schooling system isn't good enough for her brood.
This idea that the reason Kelly feels it right to send her child to a private school because this one of her offspring has a special educational need simply doesn't wash. She of all people could tell you that for some time there has been an initiative in the state school system to include all children in mainstream education, including those with SEN's such as EBD's (emotional and behavioural difficulties) and learning difficulties such as dyslexia. Through a system of statementing, schools can apply for additional support from the local authority to be able to properly educate any child, whatever their SEN. Failing this, there are still many schools of excellence in the state system that cater for those who are most badly affected by SENs. As far as I can see, then, Ruth Kelly's decision to send her child to a private school is tantamount to saying that the state system is not good enough and / or is not equipped to deal fully with her child's educational requirements. What, then, I ask myself was she doing in her role of Education Secretary? Clearly, if she herself feels that the state system cannot adequately educate her children then surely it is also failing many other families, and particularly those who cannot afford to simply send their children to private establishments instead.
