Ruth Kelly and sending her son to a private school

[Ginger Rogers]

Do you think it was her right to send her son where she wanted (and can afford) or do you think she's a hypocrite and should have sent him to main-stream school?

My own thought is that it's her business and no-one else's what she chooses to do - we are all free to choose, however, on the flip side I also think most people would probably 'choose' to send their children to private schools if they can afford it, and most people can't afford it, unless they are middle class or have very well paid jobs, therefore we only have the freedom of choice if we are rich enough to choose ???

[Araneus]

I don't think there is anybody with a brain left in the country who doesn't recognise the state education system for the catastrophic train wreck that it is. I have no problem with her looking out for the interests of her son.

[chillzero]

I don't understand why this has become everyone's business, and such an issue.

He is not her only child - the rest are in state schools. He has special requirements that can't be met by those schools, so what choice does she have? And - she is sending him to private school without cost to anyone but herself.

[Jocky]

Under these circumstances, I have no problem with her doing what she considers best for her son. I had much more of a problem with Tony Blair sending his children to a selective state school >:(


I don't think there is anybody with a brain left in the country who doesn't recognise the state education system for the catastrophic train wreck that it is.

I feel that this is overstating the case. Certainly the state education system is patchy, there is a lot of poor provision mixed in with good stuff - but it seems a bit harsh to castigate the entire system in such terms.

[Cuddles]

Well, since I think private schools shouldn't exist it would be a bit silly of me to say anything except that she should have sent him to a state school.

[Jocky]

Well, since I think private schools shouldn't exist it would be a bit silly of me to say anything except that she should have sent him to a state school.

I agree with your principle about private schools - but the reality is that you cannot stop people paying for education in a free society, so they're always going to exist. Whether they should have tax-free charitable status is a different question, though ...

It's always a difficult decision for parents when principle comes into conflict with practicality, and particularly when the child in question has special needs. It almost makes me glad that I'm too poor to afford the dilemma :-\

[Araneus]

I feel that this is overstating the case. Certainly the state education system is patchy, there is a lot of poor provision mixed in with good stuff - but it seems a bit harsh to castigate the entire system in such terms.

Fair point. In fact a lot of my dislike for the education system is based on the tendency for it to encourage group conformist behaviour and bullying, which is not exclusively limited to state schools (although I suspect it is worse).


Well, since I think private schools shouldn't exist it would be a bit silly of me to say anything except that she should have sent him to a state school.

I can sympathise with the argument that people shouldn't have to pay for education, but I can see no valid reason why they shouldn't be allowed to.

[tkingdoll]

You can't live in a capitalist Democracy without people who can afford it wanting to pay more for exclusive services or products, whether what they pay for is 'better' or not. That is how our society works - regardless of whether we have a left or right wing government.

The issue is not one of private supply - that will always exist and will be taken advantage of by those who deem it worth the financial sacrifice. To say it's unfair because only rich people can afford it is to say that big houses are unfair or that yachts are unfair or that plastic surgery is unfair. What people really mean is that someone else is rich and can buy the 'best' for their kids, and they are not. And if we claim that some folk being richer than others is unfair, well...sorry, but that's how it is. It's the oldest complaint since money began, but it's the only proven workable system. You try and make everyone financially equal and see what happens :D

The issue is one of appropriateness. If you are financially able, and wish to send your child to private school, that is your business. Your money will always be able to buy you a higher standard of ANYTHING the state also supplies for one simple reason: the private sector can offer higher salaries and more attractive working conditions than the state can and some workers put those factors high on their priority list. When individuals are motivated by money, they will sell their skills to the highest bidder. And people who can afford it will buy those skills at a premium.

The state cannot compete because it has a million more children to educate and each child's parent does not pay for their education.

However, the principle is that state education should meet the needs of every child. But in practical terms, if you have a special needs child then the state is unlikely to have the resources or the money to educate that child in the best way. What if the child needs one-to-one teaching? What if the child needs a tailored programme? The financial burden on the state is disproportionate to the results the education will yield, because the state HAS to cap the amount it can spend on any one child and does not have the resources to provide bespoke education programmes. The private sector does not.

The issue of appropriateness comes in because an MP is supposed to represent the people who elected her. And in this case, most people can't afford private education for their kids, special needs or not, so it separates Ms Kelly's principles and lifestyles from those she represents.

But, what's the alternative? She should deprive her child of the better resources? What parent would do that, MP or not? It's fine and dandy to have socialist values but when you are facing your special needs child and explaining why they cannot have what's best for them, I can't imagine those socialist values mean much.

She may also be struggling with the burden her child is placing on the state and his state school. Perhaps he's a disruption to other kids or takes up a disproportionate amount of his teacher's time? In which case she's bound to feel that it's in everyone's interests to remove him into a place better suited to his needs.

If we expect our MPs to live to the same standards as the population, then we cannot expect them to be more educated than the average person (they are), live in a house worth more than the average £172,000 (they do) or go on holiday anywhere but Spain or Disneyland (they don't).

If we're saying that we want our MPs to not just represent the average Joe, but to BE the average Joe, then we have to look around at the average Joes and ask if they are qualified to run a country.

If the complaint is that Labour is no longer the working man's party it used to be, that is very true. But we elected them. And most working-class people aspire to financial freedom (the lottery is very popular in that demographic) - would that include private education for their kids if they could afford it? I suspect so.

Principles are wonderful things to have but bear almost no relation to the individual struggle. In Ms Kelly's case, she is admitting what most people already know: that you can pay for a better standard privately than through the finite state supply. No shit. In other news, rain is wet.

Example: There has been state housing for a very long time, and yet MOST people choose to (or would if they could) buy a private home . Think about why that is. And no, it's not because there is no decent social housing left: when Thatcher allowed people to privately buy the social housing stock, people who had previously been happy in social housing jumped at the chance to be a private homeowner. The reason there is no social housing stock left is because people who lived in it opted out of the state and opted into the private sector. Individually, many may have held socialist principles about equality and fairness, and then they realised that they could make money and improve the lives and futures of their kids. Buh-bye, principles.

Another example: I have always been a vehement supporter of the NHS, quoting Ben Elton-esque tirades about how you shouldn't contribute to a two-tiered healthcare system because the poor should have access to the same standards of care as the rich. Then I had a serious health scare and the NHS wanted to me to wait months for just the first scan. My mental health went to pieces and I knew I couldn't wait one single day to find out if I had cancer, let alone months. I had to know now, so I called BUPA and the next day had a mammogram, an infrasound scan and a needle biopsy in an hour.

Should everyone with a lump be able to get such prompt and amazing treatment? Yes. Are there too many people for the current NHS structure and funding to be able to provide it? Yes. So in that case, should the people who can afford it and want to take the option be able to remove themselves from the NHS system and make their own arrangements? At one time, I might have said no. But after my own experience, hell yes. Or in other words, because most people cannot get a scan the next day and have to wait, does that mean I shouldn't get a scan the next day? Principles are wonderful, until you think you might die.

So the issue with Ruth Kelly is simply this:

- The state cannot provide the care needed for her child
- The state should be able to provide it
- Ms Kelly represents the very body that is responsible for education in the UK

Which leaves us with two questions:

1) is it the fault of the goverment that state education cannot provide the exact resources Ms Kelly needs for her child?

2) acknowledging that the state cannot provide what the child needs, and being unable to fix that, should Ms Kelly sacrifice her child's welfare for a principle?

If you think the answer to 1 is yes, then it would be hypocritical of her to continue to represent and support a government for which she used to be Education secretary whilst removing her child from the system she herself helped to create. In which case, she should resign.

Question 2 is hard to answer - if she was to keep her child in the system but try to fix the system to provide for him, would she not be accused of bias? If she removes her child from the system, she gets the flak she's getting now. If she keeps him there but does nothing, then as a mother and a wealthy person she has to face the fact that she's not doing all she could for her child. If that is because her job prevents her from doing so, she should resign. And if she does that, there's no problem with her having him privately educated!

In other words, the option she's taken seems to be to be pretty much the only one available to her. The only additional dilemma is whether or not she should continue to represent the government as her job.

Ginger, you said
therefore we only have the freedom of choice if we are rich enough to choose.

Yes. That's exactly right. That's precisely how the world works from the tiniest baked bean to the best education. Always has, always will.

[Dr B]

Excellent post Teek O0

There is also an argument that if rich people took their children out of the state system, and people who can afford it, took out private health, it would reduce the demand on the system for those that need it more.

I think you pretty much covered everything else ;)

[Araneus]

There is also an argument that if rich people took their children out of the state system, and people who can afford it, took out private health, it would reduce the demand on the system for those that need it more.

That's exactly what I was thinking. The argument that people shouldn't use private healthcare because "public healthcare should be better" is ridiculous -- people who can afford private healthcare should use it so that the free alternative will be better able to cope with those who genuinely need it.

[tkingdoll]

The problem with that is, if you increase the obligation on the wealthy to use private healthcare, they suddenly start complaining about all the tax they pay.

Private healthcare should always be optional (otherwise it's unmanageable as you can't mandate who can or can't afford it - for example if your average smoker quit then he could afford BUPA and would need it less, but your average smoker is low income).

But the difficulty with it being optional is that those who use it are paying for NHS provision they don't use. So, the more people who use private healthcare, the more protest there will be about the way it's funded. And the more protest there is from the wealthy folk in the country, the more the government will bow to pressure and reduce tax spend on the NHS accordingly.

Personally I feel the balance is pretty good at the moment, but if the balance was tipped in favour of private healthcare, it would soon spell the end of a decent NHS. Apart from anything, the NHS is only maintained at a decent level because it's supposed to be for everyone.

The fewer people using the NHS, the less money the govt. put into it.

[Dr B]

The problem with that is, if you increase the obligation on the wealthy to use private healthcare, they suddenly start complaining about all the tax they pay.

Not necessarily. Some would, but some would see that even when you go private - this still often involves an NHS GP referral - so thats what they are paying for.



Private healthcare should always be optional (otherwise it's unmanageable as you can't mandate who can or can't afford it - for example if your average smoker quit then he could afford BUPA and would need it less, but your average smoker is low income).

I for one totally agree. O0



But the difficulty with it being optional is that those who use it are paying for NHS provision they don't use. So, the more people who use private healthcare, the more protest there will be about the way it's funded. And the more protest there is from the wealthy folk in the country, the more the government will bow to pressure and reduce tax spend on the NHS accordingly.

Everyone will use it at some point - yes its not value for money - but you are paying for doctors and nurses training as well. I have no problem with making my contribution to the NHS and also going private for one or two things if i could afford it and it was appropriate for me. However, I agree that the amount I pay in NI is terrible. Maybe the government could offer some incentives. However, these points are tangential to the one i made earlier. Patients going private does reduce the load in certain areas.



Personally I feel the balance is pretty good at the moment, but if the balance was tipped in favour of private healthcare, it would soon spell the end of a decent NHS. Apart from anything, the NHS is only maintained at a decent level because it's supposed to be for everyone.

I was not arguing in favour of one over the other - just that those who can clearly and easily afford it - should where appropriate. Most consultants have NHS and private responsibilities - its the same for the patient (if you can afford it). I dont think i was suggesting a tidal wave of people going private - that will never happen due to the simple fact that the vast majority cannot afford it.



The fewer people using the NHS, the less money the govt. put into it.


The flip side - The more efficient it is - the less money is needed. Why would it need money that might become surplus to requirements (if people have lessened the load)? - then it becomes costly and inefficient. However, I do take your point in a minor sense. O0

[kath23]

I also think most people would probably 'choose' to send their children to private schools if they can afford it, and most people can't afford it, unless they are middle class or have very well paid jobs, therefore we only have the freedom of choice if we are rich enough to choose ???


That's the way life is tho innit? If people have the money it's theirs to spend on what they feel is necessary or want.

I'd have all sorts of things if I could afford it. :) Things like a personal trainer, cleaner, maybe a private jet :)

As for the argument that private schools shouldn't exist, that might make sense to an extent with mainstream education where private schools are a luxury. But if a child has special needs, they need all the help they can get.

The state just isn't going to have the specialist facilities. At least not without a long wait. She may feel she just wouldn't be doing the best for her child by depriving him for any length of time of something he actually needs for his development, when she can afford it.

[Cuddles]

Good points from Teek, but there are a couple of things. First of all, does anyone actually know if there is anything wrong with Ruth Kelly's child? The reports I have read say that she felt state education couldn't cope with "special needs", but they do not say if these special needs are genuine learning problems or simply a parent saying "My child is special". If the former, I can sympathise somewhat, if the latter then she has no excuse.

My other point, with regards to the NHS, is that while I agree that private healthcare will always be available, it is partly this that is to blame for the NHS not being as good as private. Not only are doctors trained using our taxes (or those of India and Sri Lanka admittedly) but every procedure done privately is one less that the NHS could have done. You say you went private because the NHS has a long wait, but if all the doctors working privately had been in the NHS the wait would be much shorter. There is a similar situation with education, where it is not just that the private sector will always have more money, but that the private sector actively makes the public sector worse by preferentially removing the better teachers.

Of course, I don't have an answer for this, and I'm not sure there even is one, but I think that it is important to note that it is not simply a matter of people being allowed to pay for better services, since the act of paying for private service actually makes things worse for everyone who can't afford to do the same.

[tkingdoll]

Cuddles, the specialist that I saw through BUPA is the same one that I would have seen through the NHS. At that level, it's not uncommon for surgeons to work for both. The only difference is the waiting time and that is 100% because of NHS red tape. I won't go into the insane bureaucratic breast lump 'streams' (urgent or non-urgent) that the NHS put you into, because frankly it makes my blood boil, but the fault is with NHS admin and targets and not doctors.

Regarding Ruth Kelly's kid, I've read that he has 'learning difficulties' - it seems highly unlikely that a Labour MP who used to be Education Secretary would take her child out of state school unless it was absolutely necessary, particularly as her other kids remain there.