Ruth Kelly

C

clivex

Banned member
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Messages
12,720
Labour MP sends kids to private school storm...again

I think shes a dismal automaton politician (very typical of those striving high achievers who have stacks of qualifications but seemingly little natural flair...) with sinister religous views

Certainly her Opus Dei membership indicates that shes an enthusiast for "elites"

But is she right or wrong in this instance?
 
Surely there isn't a case of right or wrong in this instance - it is a parent's given right to do what they deem in their child's best interests.

It is also clear in this case that Ruth Kelly is a supporter of state schools as her other children attend them. However, she may feel that in this instance the needs of her disabled child could be better met privately (as I'm sure many other parents would feel in a similar position).

An absolute non-issue IMO.
 
So, FU, where does that leave the thousands of parents of disabled kids who aren't on MPs salaries and allowances? It must surely be time for 'Labour' to be called something else, something that actually reflects their real status vis-a-vis the working or 'benefits' society. Perhaps 'New Tory'? I can't tell the difference any more. Labour's upwardly-aspirational MPs are bourgeois through and through, and while that probably really DOES reflect the society the UK has become far more than a faux Con-Lab divide, it's actions like Kelly's which simply show up the fakery behind it. 'Labour' is irrelevant in terms of its heritage.

PS: if she feels that strongly that her disadvantaged child's not going to get much help in a State-run school (i.e. run by her party's government) then why the hell doesn't she do something about ensuring that s/he does, and everyone else who needs to use the State's institutions? It's a cop-out, but as it's based on an emotive subject, not, say, on her sending her crumbly old Granny to live in a private nursing home, it'll be acceptable.
 
PS: if she feels that strongly that her disadvantaged child's not going to get much help in a State-run school (i.e. run by her party's government) then why the hell doesn't she do something about ensuring that s/he does, and everyone else who needs to use the State's institutions?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that every state run school should be better than, or at least as good as, for every type of pupil, in every respect, every private school?
(with apologies for dodgy sentence construction)
 
Contribution?

I started the thread...

Labour has thrown money at education. Even their worst enemies must accept that. If she has her "non learning difficulties" kids in state schools, then fine i think

bit of a non story maybe
 
Mel, I'm simply saying what I'm saying: if Ruth Kelly felt that her disadvantaged child could not have his/her needs served in a State school, then she is in a strong position to do something (i.e. Labour MP, not a desperate mother) about improving the conditions for such children in State schools. There has been this long-running nonsense, starting back in the early 1990s, that everyone is equal and that it's wrong to keep the mentally-defective in institutions, but that they should be put into 'care in the community' (with horrendous results, which Mencap - now SANE - pointed out would happen at the time); that children with learning problems (and there's a wide range of those) should be integrated into State schools so that they could somehow, miraculously, 'learn' from other kids... this dicking around with the lives of those unfortunate enough not to have full mental faculties has not been successful, but it's fashionable to still pretend that it's working.

There's no point going all emotional about the subject because it's about children. Either a child, anyone's child, is served by State education, whether the child has full mental faculties or not, or it's not served by State education. It's the government which provides State facilities, and as a member of the reigning government, Mrs Kelly is demonstrating that she doesn't have the levels of confidence that the government has in providing these services. SHE is in a position to make that point to her party - instead, she's opted out to put her child in the private sector (i.e. the for-profit/capitalist sector) and presumably, the vast amounts of parents with children with poor educative prospects can go to hell.

Clivex: here's where we don't and won't agree: with your redneck descriptions of people who don't have full mental faculties. I realise you've written them with a view to being 'controversial' and gaining some attention, but that's a pathetic new low in your behaviour.
 
I have split out the two very offensive postings from clivex and sent them to Mods Only for Admin and Mods to consider whether further action is required.

The use of those terms for children with learning disabilities was grossly offensive generally but in particular it would be to anyone who is a member of the forum with a child with such disabilities .

Thanks to everyone for not rising to him but they could not stay due to their potential for offence .
 
Mrs Kelly is demonstrating that she doesn't have the levels of confidence that the government has in providing these services
Click to expand...

Not really - she's just demonstrating that she doesn't have the levels of confidence in the specific state school in question necessary to keep her child there. It's not about getting emotional when the kids are involved, it's about getting pragmatic.
 
SHE is in a position to make that point to her party - instead, she's opted out to put her child in the private sector (i.e. the for-profit/capitalist sector)
Click to expand...

Most private schools are non profit trusts arent they?
 
Originally posted by krizon@Jan 8 2007, 12:14 PM
Mel, I'm simply saying what I'm saying: if Ruth Kelly felt that her disadvantaged child could not have his/her needs served in a State school, then she is in a strong position to do something (i.e. Labour MP, not a desperate mother) about improving the conditions for such children in State schools. There has been this long-running nonsense, starting back in the early 1990s, that everyone is equal and that it's wrong to keep the mentally-defective in institutions, but that they should be put into 'care in the community' (with horrendous results, which Mencap - now SANE - pointed out would happen at the time); that children with learning problems (and there's a wide range of those) should be integrated into State schools so that they could somehow, miraculously, 'learn' from other kids... this dicking around with the lives of those unfortunate enough not to have full mental faculties has not been successful, but it's fashionable to still pretend that it's working.

There's no point going all emotional about the subject because it's about children. Either a child, anyone's child, is served by State education, whether the child has full mental faculties or not, or it's not served by State education. It's the government which provides State facilities, and as a member of the reigning government, Mrs Kelly is demonstrating that she doesn't have the levels of confidence that the government has in providing these services. SHE is in a position to make that point to her party - instead, she's opted out to put her child in the private sector (i.e. the for-profit/capitalist sector) and presumably, the vast amounts of parents with children with poor educative prospects can go to hell.

Clivex: here's where we don't and won't agree: with your redneck descriptions of people who don't have full mental faculties. I realise you've written them with a view to being 'controversial' and gaining some attention, but that's a pathetic new low in your behaviour.
Click to expand...
Have to admit I expected as much from ol' clivey, now fully demonstrating he is nothing but a troll (and never will be anything but). Don't let the door hit you on the arse...

Krizon,

I have done some voluntary work in my youth dealing with disablved children, and I can tell you that often decisions such as this have nothing to do with the facilities of the.. erm.. facility. On several occasions, we had children start at the centre where I volunteered at who absolutely hated the place and were suffering as a result. They were then moved to the much smaller (and less well equipped) school on the other side of town, with the result that they greatly benefited from the change in surroundings.

The difference between the two was that the second school had a budget approximately one tenth of the first.

Sometimes its got bugger all squared to do with the so-called political issues or "confidence" in the school - its simply what's best for the child.

Anyone who seeks to score political points from an issue like this can join Clivex in a group of people who I can't be arsed to talk to any more...
 
Kelly's kid has dyslexia, for goodness sake - it's hardly that bad! My cousin runs a pre-school group and there are several weans in that who are termed with 'learning difficulties', dyslexia being one of them. Some of their parents are lone parents and I bet they'd be hard-pressed to cut £15,000 a year for their entire families, let alone for one of several children. We even have a couple on this august forum, or who've overcome other difficulties, and I don't believe they've required private, £15,000 a year private facilities.

David Cameron has a kid with cerebral palsy, which is far more of a 'learning difficulty' in most people's book, yet that one's in a State school. Still, if you've got £15,000 p.a. (more than an average salary down here) to spare for one of your kids for the next few years, why not spend it as you wish? Being rich gives you the right to splash your money around as you like - it doesn't have to have anything to do with your political ethics, even if you represent a party which fought furiously on an anti-capitalist platform for decades. What a laugh.
 
I used to tutor mathematics to secondary school students (aged 12 to 17) in Ireland. One of my students had dyslexia which was so bad that it was completely compromising his ability to concentrate, read, write and even add up in his head.

At the time, he had been going to a very fine Christian Brothers' school in Dublin (I went there myself) but his needs were not catered for by the school.

He ended up going to a private school (somewhere in Blackrock I think). I met his mother about last Christmas down the village, and his education has come on a ton since then.

I find it very worrying that people are trying to second guess Kelly's decisions on her children.
 
Why? It's a topic for discussion and ideas - that's why it's headline news in the media today, where everyone is always second-guessing everything, it seems.

What I'm saying is that she's the bloody former Education Secretary - she was in the most important post in the country to change things for the better in State-run schools, and she's got 15 grand to spare, so she can afford to opt out. If she feels that State schools aren't good enough for this child, what is the message she's sent to all other parents without such luxurious funding? "I'm all right, Jack and Jill - and I did bugger all about making things better for your kids when I was Education Secretary, too." Presumably things were 'all right' then, before it mattered to her?
 
It is not uncommon for pupils with substantial learning difficulties to spend some time outside the state sector to help them progress - sometimes this is paid for by the local authority.

In her case, she has not and will not seek the help of the local authority in meeting these costs.
 
Bit harsh

Labour has, even its worst enemies would admit, done a fair bit for education.

Dyslexia is very common (my brother has it mildly...and he went to oxford...or xofdro as he told me...) and its a bit suprising that the state doesnt have more provision for it...

I dont have a problem with this personally, especially given that shes backed the state system with her other kids

think the press has been harsh here and there are other issues with this minister which bother me more
 
Gareth - dyslexics learn eventually, while children with cerebral palsy (what old-timers will recall as spastics) will be forever extremely limited, in terms of acquiring knowledge, being able to use it, and often life span. That's what I implied in terms of 'not so bad', yet both conditions are considered to be 'learning difficulties', which is plainly stupid in the case of many children similarly tagged, where there will never be an ability to learn anything beyond the simplest recognition of colours and shapes.

There are many degrees of severity in 'learning difficulties', as anyone with an autistic child or children will tell you, through ADD (often helped by a change of diet and activity), to any brain-damaged by childhood diseases or conditions. So there are some conditions which are, indeed, not as bad as others - while a bland, simplistic tag doesn't help define the level of the difficulties.
 
I don't have a problem with private education, but what I dislike about the Ruth Kellys and Diane Abbotts of this world is that they want to have it both ways - it seems that it's wrong for other people to pay for their children's education, but not them.
 
Back
Top