Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Ruth kelly send her child to private school because of SN

280 replies

PeachyClair · 08/01/2007 11:53

part story here

Now I haev no problems with private schools as such, just seems this woman is partlyr esponsible for completely effing up the chances of SN kids (such as mine) in mainstream, then she opts out.

Most parentscaring for sn kids don't have £15k a year to make that decision.

Wonder if she realised what she was planning when she was the Minister? Coz that would explain the state of Sn in aminstream schools frankly.

And on the same day I geta letter stating mys ion can't have any occupational therapy because his Teacher ahsn't had the time to fill in the forms by their deadline.

OP posts:
Original poster
PeachyClair · 08/01/2007 12:04

another thread here

OP posts:
wheelsonthebus · 08/01/2007 12:10

she was educated at millfield and westminster - and rejects the state sector she was supposed to be in charge of. makes me very angry

Saturn74 · 08/01/2007 12:22

I agree to some extent that it is a personal matter, and she has the right to choose how her children are educated.
However, I am livid that I have had to give up my business and home educate my two dyslexic children because the state school system is so patently unable to do it appropriately.
She did nothing to improve the education system during her time as Education Minister, IMO.
We looked into sending our children to a specialist school for dyslexic children at secondary level.
The only option was for them to board (which none of us want), and it would cost £40K per child per year.

UCM · 08/01/2007 12:34

Oh well, one rule for the proles.....

paulaplumpbottom · 08/01/2007 13:30

I have to say I don't have a big problem with this. I don't really like Ruth Kelly but she has just as much right to school her children as she sees fit as the rest of us.

Saturn74 · 08/01/2007 13:37

If she had done her job as Education Minister properly, there would be no need for her to opt out of the state school system that she was paid to oversee.
The special needs support in mainstream primary schools in England is a joke, IME.
So although Ruth Kelly has every right to educate her children as she sees fit, parents of children who have been badly let down by the school system have every right to be angered by her behaviour.

UCM · 08/01/2007 13:41

But it isn't right. Recently she was banging on about introducing Kelly Hours, for kids to be at school 12 hours per day so parents could go and work for the 'common good'.

Obviously not, it's so she can have a huge salary, foist her ideals on us, but discount them for her own family and have the right to choose. It all stinks.

AttilaTheMeerkat · 08/01/2007 13:42

Downing Street said that the move was necessary because there was insufficient state provision to educate the child locally. I can well believe this. Its the same for practically all SEN provision; you don't get it without much debate and discussion on your part. I won't even state the emotional cost. Can see also why charitable services like IPSEA continue to be much in demand.

However, the local council (re Ruth Kelly) involved denied the claims and said: "Our schools are well-resourced and provide high-quality education for all." I even read the words "tailor made" in one sentence. To which I would respond to the above, "yeah right" in a sarcastic tone.

Mrs Kelly's situation with her child highlights serious failings in the SEN system; a system that is designed to be mainly adversarial in nature with parents pitted against LEA's to get provision for their child's needs.

If someone like Mrs Kelly feels that she has to do this (with both her political clout and money) then what chance do the rest of us have?. Its not just Mrs Kelly's fault that the SEN system is in a mess; this situation is a result of decades of neglect by various elected governments.

Dinosaur · 08/01/2007 13:46

Very well put, Attila.

Private education makes me very uneasy but somehow so does slagging off one individual as if she were somehow single-handedly responsible for the whole sorry mess.

UnquietDad · 08/01/2007 13:49

The essential point is again being missed by many - everyone has the "right" in theory to send children to their "choice" of school. But it's a right which is denied to many of us by this Labour government. We don't all have the option which the loathsome Ruth Kelly has.

UCM · 08/01/2007 13:49

But it's not one individual ie you or me. Its a woman who was, at one point, in charge of eduction and was attempting to put some dreadful, IMO, practices into place. I think that is why I am annoyed.

Marina · 08/01/2007 13:55

One just hopes that politicians who make this sort of choice for the sake of their child's individual needs, will bear that fact in mind when deciding policies for the rest of us.
I am torn between huge sympathy for Mrs Kelly's personal dilemma and real fury at the attitude of her political party towards realistic nationwide educational choice for children of all needs.

Judy1234 · 08/01/2007 14:11

But don't we have the freedom to earn salaries to allow us to put our children into a school costing £15k a year?

I'm interested she isn't seeking LA funding for it as some local authorities do stump up for some special needs funding children at private and even boading schools and had she got it it might have encouraged local authorities to pay for more.

2shoes · 08/01/2007 14:16

Xenia most parents with children with sn live in povety. as it is unlikely either parent can hold down a job due to the pressures of caring. so no they don't have the freedom to earn enough to pay £15,000 a year fees.

Piffle · 08/01/2007 14:21

most parents of kids with sn live in poverty
Please please show me your sources
I think that is a massive over generalisation
I have opted out at nursery level for my dd and gone private for mild SN which are not catered for by LEA.
Thankfully primary provision here is better than nursery though.
I am not going to condemn Ruth Kelly for what is a private decision, she knows her child best, why keep him somewhere he is not happy and thriving if she can afford better as well paid parent.
The fact that many of us cannot afford it is not her actual fault.
But it does highlight the immense failings within education system for those children that do not fit the "model" and that goes for both ends of the spectrum.

Dinosaur · 08/01/2007 14:22

I don't believe for a moment that things would be any better under a government of a different hue, Unquiet Dad.

Xenia, lol at the idea that everyone whose children have special needs have the "choice" to earn enough to pay school fees of £15,000.

2shoes · 08/01/2007 14:24

sorry piffle was talking about the people who I meet in rl not a newspaper article.

coppertop · 08/01/2007 14:25

I'm ROFL at that comment too, Dinosaur. When you have a child with SN, freedom isn't a commodity you tend to have much of.

FioFio · 08/01/2007 14:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

coppertop · 08/01/2007 14:32

Further down the page on this link are some figures about the financial implications of having a child with SN. try here

UCM · 08/01/2007 14:35

Xenia, I think you need a life coach. I would bring so much reality into your life and make you realise how good your life is... I only want 50k per annum. Can I have a job please.

There you go, I can be enterprenurial too

coppertop · 08/01/2007 14:35

It includes the figure that 55% of families with a disabled child live in or on the margins of poverty so 2shoes is right according to this source.

UnquietDad · 08/01/2007 14:40

I wasn't for a minute suggesting things would be better under the Tories. But they aren't saddled with a history of ideological opposition to private schooling, of course.

foxinsocks · 08/01/2007 14:41

in a way though, I wish she'd just come out and told everyone rather than waiting for it to be found out (I appreciate that's not easy but she must have known someone would cotton on and far easier to control the situation with the press if you are the one calling the shots).

The LEA offered to fund the school - I'm just wondering how easy it is for other parents in the same situation to access that sort of LEA funding for their special needs children. I do, however, think it makes a mockery of their 'special needs to be included in mainstream' policy.

filthymindedvixen · 08/01/2007 14:44

''If she had done her job as Education Minister properly, there would be no need for her to opt out of the state school system that she was paid to oversee.
The special needs support in mainstream primary schools in England is a joke, IME.
So although Ruth Kelly has every right to educate her children as she sees fit, parents of children who have been badly let down by the school system have every right to be angered by her behaviour. ''

hear hear HC - I am livid because at last parent's eveing my ds's teacher said: ''I hope to goodness you can get him into a good secondary school as we have not the money or resources to help him here...''

He is 9years old FGS and has, IMO been thrown on the scrap heap already.

I stayed at home for 5 yeasrs with my children (before I knew he was dyslecix) and so HAVE to work now to try and get us back on an even financial keel, so HE, although highly desirable) is not an option.

As for private ed, well until 2 years ago, we - a family of 4 - were living on little more than £15,000 so....
In my fecking dreams.