In defence of Ruth Kelly

Hypocrite! That's the Evening Standard's headline this morning. The word is accompanied with a picture of Ruth Kelly.

But is she? The minister would only be a hypocrite if she opposed the existence of public schools or had advanced the principle that people shouldn't send their children to such schools. Has she? I don't believe so.

Oddly, it would be hypocritical for a former Labour Education Secretary to send their child to one of the few remaining state selective schools, since they have acted to make selection almost impossible. But their policy towards private education has been, essentially, live and let live.

Ruth Kelly and her husband are making a difficult (and expensive) decision about the schooling that is best for their child. I think their decision should be respected.

So, in short, Guido and I concur.

Comments

Daniel
This is not about criticising those who send their children to private schools. I think the indignation will be more about someone who was at the heart of policy, seeking to quash discussion of her own practice of going against her own party's policy.
Barry Wood

[Ralph Lucas]

Just a mother doing the best by her child. If only she'd been keen on helping others do the same when she ran education.

[mirthios]

Sorry, you're missing the point.

The child has been taken out of a state school to be sent to a £15,000-a-year private school which "specialises in preparing children with learning difficulties for entry into elite public schools."

That is something which the state sector simply will not do - as a matter of policy.

[Tom Rider]

Why do newspaper editors persist in publishing these reports about politician’s personal lives? Makes an easy headline and good copy I suppose. The real scandal has been Labour wasting the nation’s wealth on unreformed public services and calamitous wars in west Asia.

[Abioye A Oyetunji]

I really don't know what the fuss is. Private schools are better than State schools and any responsible parent that can afford to send their child to a private school will do so. Sending your child to a private school as a a Government minister does not mean that you do not care or are incapable of being in charge of state education any more than you would be incapable of administering welfare simply because you weren't on the dole yourself. With the amount of money that gets spent on private schools, how could the education not be better? I have no interest in being angry about a politician working in the interest of their own children.

[a.akeroyd]

Will it now be possible for all those children who have special needs, to get the education that they deserve, particularly since her department closed 100's of special needs schools. I don't condem her for doing the best for her child. It is the hypocrisy of the government. "Do as I say not as I do".

[Sarah Howes]

Oh for goodness sake! Does there always have to be a witch-hunt? We do the best for our children regardless of what the government believes - and personally it seems to me they can't make up their minds about education anyway - it's constant change.
Leave the woman alone. Those who throw stones should be grateful their children don't need special education

[Debbie Procter]

Why isn't Kelly being challenged on her claim that her son has 'substantial learning difficulties' that couldn't be met in the state sector? If her son had 'substantial' difficulties he would have a statement of special educational needs by now from the LEA. Kelly would long ago have had the professional advice she says she's just received. The most likely explanation is her son doesn't have a statement of SEN, and his needs aren't substantial, but it's politically expedient for her to say so. Her choice of school could not be more elitist. Set up by a very wealthy american business man, most children are bused out from London's wealthiest addresses. Her son will be odd as the only one going on to state school which raises questions about how good a parent she's being.