Private or State?

[Friedland R]

Ruth Kelly, Labour's former education secretary, has caused controversy by choosing to send her child to a specialist private school. Her child has 'substantial' learning difficulties and needs specific facilities and teaching. The school she has chosen costs �15,000 per year and is undoubtedly very good for children with such difficulties. However, her local education authority has claimed that the state system is very well equipped for children with dyslexia. Labour has consistently championed the state school system and people have argued that Ruth Kelly is being hypocritical by choosing a private school.
Do you feel that Ruth Kelly has been right to send her child to a private school?
Does her role as a mother come first above that of a politician or should she follow Labour's policy on education?

[pingping]

I think that she is absolutely entitled to send her children to any school which would be able to provide the best care and education for them. if that is a private school and she is able to pay the fees then so be it. anyone who challenges her over this is hypocritical, as they know perfectly well that they would do the same in her position.

[Ellipsis]

They would do the same in her position if they could afford to ... but most people can't afford to.

However, IMO this isn't so much hypocrisy as an admission by a Cabinet minister and a former education secretary that the state system cannot adequately provide for some pupils.

[meltoadhall]

she has the right to send her child where ever she chooses and where she feels the child would do best.
it should have nothing to do with anyone else!

[pingping]

why has this question been highlighted in red?

[Suzyboo]

She can send her child wherever she wants but why should she still be allowed to represent a party whose educational policy she clearly has no faith in?

[Lllama85]

Of course Ruth Kelly has the right to send her child to a private school. She is a mother and like everymother, has the right to give the her child the best possible start in life.

I just feel it's a ashame she felt the the local state schools were not suitable for her child. This is something that the Government possibly needs to reconsider? Especially State schools offering extra services and facilties for children with special needs.

What happens if you are a mother and cannot afford to pay �15,000 for your child?Does this mean they have to get sent to a mediocre state school?

[-Zorro-]

Are you the editor

[dolly pond]

I want to know how i got 3 stars next to my name
I would do the same as she did, I teach a young lad with learning disabilites the piano, and his parents would do the same, if they had the money as his statement of education is apprently poor.

[Christiana]

I actually find myself more likely to support Ruth Kelly for showing that her child means more to her than being politically correct. I would not have cared for her if I saw her sacrificing her child rather than give the child the most appropriate education she could find for someone with his/her special educational needs. No system can hope to meet the requirements of every child, state or private, so I favour as much choice as possilble, even for Labour ministers!

[aviator]

She can send her child where she wants as can any parent, however, using her childs dyslexia is a feeble excuse for doing so.
I'm a primary teacher and i dont feel she is a hypocrite, she has to do what she feels is right for her child. I don't really care where she sends her kids or any other politician to be honest, after all you might sell insurance for norwich union but insure your car with direct line?