If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I don't think that is "jumping to conclusions" at all- if Kelly was satisfied with the state provision then she wouldn't be moving. It obviously isn't good enough for her and her child, so she's taking him out and paying for him privately.
She is a member of the ruling party responsible for this.
As I've said, my sister in law has SEN and these are not being met. This is just yet another slap in the face from the Government, this is nothing more than rubbing our faces in the dirt. And this Government has proven time and time again that this is what it thinks of us. The only surprise is that people are surprised.
I agree that her immediate priority should be to her family, but its a shame she didn't extend the same diligence to our families, isn't it?
As for having an "axe to grind", I don't. I'd be much happier if Kelly had done her job properly and that both our families received the SEN support they need.
However, if your occupation just happens to be (or happened to be) the person in charge of state education, it doesn't take a genius to realise that her decision is a negative indictment of the state system and an admission of failure on her part.
If she uses the "case" to support a push for better state funded support then great, if she doesn't then she is saying "well fuck you lot, I can afford it but you're on your own".
She has to take responsibilty for her lack of action as Sec State and, as she is paying from her own pocket, it could be argued that she is. Her failure, which this highlights, is for all those children whose parents cannot afford the level of education which she, herself, is able to provide for her child. Those ar ethe people we should focus on. Condemn her for failing them, not for supporting her child.
After all one of the absolute tenants of the UK's democracy (you know when you post something and can already see Seeker quoting it...) is ministerial responsibility. Ruth Kelly is responsible for everything that the Department of Education does, she is responsible for waste, for corruption, for every failed measure, for any misdeeds within the ministry. Thats an absolute prinicipal of the UK, she, and no one else, holds the final responsibility for everything within education.
Given the aims of her government, and the situation that was developing with her child, it's got to be considered why she didn't resign. To me it seems that resigning would have been putting her child first and upholding her legal responsibility for the mistakes she (as the Department for Education) has made - although I'd feel differently if there was evidence she was improving the situation, rather than continuing to make it much worse.
She isn't just a mother, she's the overseer, manager, and final responsiblity of the education system of the UK.
To be fair she's no longer got DfES she's Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (a much better department IMHO)
those special needs are dyslexia, which they think over 5% of the population has, most of whom don't do TOO badly at schools these days
Seem's a bit unfair to favour one child over the rest - despite them having difficulties, school should cater for it.
Ruth Kelly (fancy prep school, private girls secondary school and Queen's College, Oxford) isn't the first Labour MP to want her child to go to a private school and she won’t be the last.
Many parents wish they could afford to follow the example of Ruth Kelly and Diane Abbott and send their kids to private schools. But they can't. And for as long as Labour refuses to support a school voucher system which could help create a level playing field private schools will remain a closed option to millions of children.
Not that the Tories are much better. And by that I mean, David Cameron, (Eton and Brasenose, Oxford) like Labour he opposes grammar schools in the State sector. And he opposes a voucher system. Grammar schools... a slightly different but related issue.
Indeed, I wonder why it is that all these politicians who went to private schools and Oxbridge are so vehemently opposed to grammar schools. Our top universities after all used to take a much higher proportion of state school students - before grammar schools around the country were closed and confined to just a few parts of the country. The effect of abolishing grammar schools has been to reduce social mobility and reduce the numbers of people from working and lower middle class backgrounds going to top universities. The likes of David Cameron, Ruth Kelly, Charles Clarke - all educated at expensive private schools before strolling into Oxbridge hate grammar schools. It's not surprising really, grammar schools have been shown to provide strong competition to their beloved private schools and Old Etonians like Cameron would no doubt like to see their kids and friends kids get a free run to Oxbridge.
Grammar schools select according to ability, basically according to how well you do in a test when you're eleven. Most grammar schools now are private as grammar schooling has been largely abolished in the state sector, but some cities (such as Ripon in Yorkshire) still have a grammar and comprehensive system.
Basically what happens if you're in a state grammar area is that if you're lucky enough to pass your exams at age eleven you go to the good school with the top facilities and the best teachers; if you don't then you go to the bankrupt comprehensive across the street. In Ripon the comprehensive school is at least 25% behind the grammar school in all markers- finance, teaching standards, post-16 retention, exam results, and, most importantly, the value-added exam results (which is a measure of how much a pupil improves between the time he enters the school and the time he leaves it). Obviously this is nothing short of a disgrace, but the hypocritical Labour party haven't had the guts to abolish it yet, because as the adorable Ms Kelly proves, they love nothing more than shitting on the general public from a great height.
I consider myself an intelligent person (indeed I got the best A'Level exam results in my year at my school), yet I would probably have failed the exams at 11. Would I have got excellent A'Levels and a good degree from Durham if I'd been in a grammar area- probably not.
Regarding the original topic, the advice wasn't actually from the LEA, if you look closely. It was "professional" advice, yes, but it looks like the shining light of Opus Dei is telling little porky pies when she implies that it was all the LEA's idea- it was hers. Cardinal Ratzinger will be so cross.
Grammar schools are state schools. (As Kermit said where grammar schools have been abolished some grammar schools became private schools, although, others became state comprehensives).
Kermit makes the argument against grammar schools. I'm not sure where the 25% figure comes from. However, the fact remain that the number of people from working class and lower middle class backgrounds attending top universities declined sharply following the abolition of grammar schools in most parts of the country. Grammar schools promote social mobility.
The grammar school system is not perfect I accept. If grammar schools were reintroduced nationally the system would need tweaking. However, the underlying premise that different schools should cater to students with different needs is absolutely correct - and that's exactly what the grammar school system is about. The ethos behind comprehensive schools, the one size fits all approach is a proven failure. It makes sense for some schools to be more academically focused and others to focus more on vocational skills.
Streaming within comprehensives, effectively creating grammar schools within comprehensives, is sometimes suggested as a compromise option. But it doesn't work. Schools are too small for it to work, insufficient numbers of teachers and timetabling considerations usually only allow for one or two subjects at most to be streamed by ability.
I do not know if secondary moderns are that much worse off facility wise than their grammar school counterparts. It does not seem to be the case with the secondary moderns I am familiar with. I also know people who came to the grammar school I attended from secondary moderns for Sixth Form. If secondary moderns do get less funding, facilities, etc I think that is something that should be tweaked but the basic idea of having grammar schools which are more academically focused makes sense. In Germany there is a similar system, although, I know the secondary modern equivalent is not seen as particularly inferior to the grammar school - which is the case here, and what puts people like Kermit off I think.
But grammar schools aren't going to come back. Privately educated politicians, their privately educated friends and all of their privately educated children don't want the tougher competition for top university places, government jobs, city jobs, etc that grammar schools would create. (To be fair a lot of Conservative MPs still do favour grammar schools but Cameron's Etonian elite are as opposed to them as Labour).
So parents are left with the flawed comprehensive education idea, the City Academy gimmick or the option of sending their kids to a religious school. Because it's perfectly acceptable for top schools like London Oratory to select on religion but it's not okay for grammar schools to select on academic considerations.
Interesting. In England it's pretty much the opposite mostly, I don't know any religious grammar schools but religious schools here are generally comprehensives.
I'm surprised local authorities have been given such power as to decide whether grammar schools should stay or be abolished. You'd think that's a decision taken at national level.
I gather there aren't many Counties left where grammar schools still exist? So presumably it's not necessarily a Labour/Conservative split issue.
164 state grammar schools exist.
But:
In national politics I know Labour have generally always been hostile towards grammar schools and the Conservatives defensive of them. (Of course loads of Labour and Conservative politicans who didn't go to private schools benefited from a grammar school education...) Locally, I'm not sure, since many still exist in Labour areas e.g. Slough. And Slough still has a full grammar school system.
From wiki:
So it's not as if the Conservatives were willing to fight for them.
So what's the big deal?
She's a parent, she lives in the real world and she wants the best for her child. In an ideal world the state schools would cater for all. But this isn't the ideal world.
She can afford the fee's and wants to give her child the best she can for their special needs, I'd be disappointed if she sacrificed her child just to keep this easy for her at work.
She is still a member of the ruling party of this country, and as such continues to take full responsibility for all decisions of that party.
They're being abolioshed in Northern Ireland, despite a consultation suggesting 90% support for keeping them.
Northern Ireland has consistently had better GCSWresults than England, though not sure whether that's linked to Grammar schools or that we're just naturally more intelligent
Unbelievable prescience !
(I`m hoping that was tacit acknowledgement that the usage of such abstractions is essentially meaningless).
Meanwhile, back to the bullfight
New Labour has done absolutely nothing to deal with this, abolishing grammar schools, dumbing down GCSEs and A-Levels, and herding young people into university as if they were cows, all in the name of "social equality". Yes, that concept which New Labour knows nothing about. I heard an MP saying earlier this week that this is a betrayal of Labour principles. Nonsense. The truth is, Labour gave up any principles it had when it elected Tony Blair.
Ruth Kelly's ministerial record is a pathetic failure, just like those of most New Labour cabinet ministers. As a mother, however, she has shown first-class judgement. Well done to you, Ruth. All you now need to do is resign your cushy Cabinet job and start campaigning to improve our dreadful education system.
Dude, you’re going to have to elaborate on this one for me. Do you honestly believe that state run schools, which offer free (paid for with taxes, yes) education to everyone below the age of 18, are in fact a “socialist abomination and a national disgrace”?