Ruth kelly send her child to private school because of SN

[PeachyClair]

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.

I think that 'normal' schools can't be expected to do everything so I think there shouldn't be a problem here per se. However, I strongly disagree with labour's policy of inclusion and subsequent shutting down of special schools. Money saving gits.

Can I just remind everyone that Ruth Kelly's other 3 children all attend state school and she plans for her DS to return to the state sector for his secondary education.

I personally don't like the woman (her voice grates me) but I find the vituperative invective towards her quite spiteful, especially as we don't know the whole story (and I don't think we are entitled to either).

I understand the ire some have regarding the provision of services for SN (my DB's son is autistic and attends a special needs state school as I mentioned in an earlier post) but I'm trying to think about this whole issue objectively (if I had a child with SN that would be impossible). IMO, all parents should have access to these type of services but I would like to understand more fully the economics of providing these solely in a special school as oppose to a main stream school because both Tory and Labour govts have been closing these schools for years. I can see the logic in providing a special school for children with severe learning disabilities but do children with less severe learning difficulties need such intensive, exclusive environment or would they be best served in a main stream school that could provide the services they need? The question then is, what support do main stream schools need in order to provide the services for these children?

Are there more special needs children now than in the past, especially with the rise in diagnosis like attention deficit syndrome? I'm trying to understand what is defined as special needs in the less obvious cases like dyslexia, ADS etc and the educational support that parents need.

Certainly ASd diagnosis has gone up, yes- its over 500,000 poeple int he Uk with a diagnosis now.

I'm not arguing that all Sn kids need Sn schools; mine doesn't BUT he does need some support, support he just isn't getting in any way of form at the moment.

I never had any particular ire (or interest in Ms Kelly) befor this- don't tend toards ire me- but I reallyc annot abide the I'm OK jack attitude in anybdy.

It's not just about provision for sn within the state sector imo it's about general provision. There isn't enough money put in full stop.

so Zenia, when everyone is out there earning their £100k a year having built up their own businesses from scratch, having achieved huge degrees etc, who is going to collect their rubbish, who is going to educate those children in the private schools, because all those people will be off earning their fat cat salaries to send their own kids to private schools. In fact, schools won't exist, because no-one will want to teach for less than £100k and the government, and the private sector, won't be paying that kind of money. Wake up and smell the coffee.

And for someone who is so successful and who earns so much, you seem to have an awful lot of free time to post on mn.

Yes Zenia is entitled to her opinion, but we only have her word for the fact she earns the money she does etc, this is the internet, anyone can sign up and say they earn £100k a year - we don't really know do we.

Why is this even a story? Kelly is behaving just like a good New Labour crony, a big up yours to all those students in the 100 sn schools they closed down.

Bliar must be very pleased with her. As I have always said New Labour owe more to Thatcherism than any past Labour glory. John Smith must be burling in his grave (that is spinning very fast for those south of the watter.)

My but these Lemsips are strong.

What about this point then? Ruth Kelly and Tony Blair got to where they are because they went to Millfield boarding school and then Westminster School sixthform (and Oxford) her case and Fettes (boarding school his). Their children may have a right to expect if their parents earn whatever it is the Blairs earn £300k?, that their parents buy them places at good private schools but they are denied that and go in both cases to state Catholic schools as a matter of principle. In other words they have sacrificed their children for their principles in a sense. Is that fair? IN other words if one of you had a very bright child or child with very special needs and you had the money to improve their lot but chose not to do so would that be right? Is it right to say choose holidays and cars over private schools as well?

I'd like to know how sever his dyslexia is. I suspect it must be quite bad to take him from the school his 3 sisters are at the send him off alone to board at 9 at a school preparing children for public school which he will then be denied.

All that, xenia, is based on an assumption that private schools are so much better for children. And I don't agree with that assumption.

So dramatic talk of sacrifice and a 'right' to expect their parents to show love through paying for an expensive school is very far-fetched.

But Xenia, SHE CHOSE to join the Labour party; SHE CHOSE to accept the role of education minister. Nobody forced here into it (unlike the current job she has har har har )

Millfield? grew up near Street. Not that speical, TBH, know several kids went there and to other Private schools who have done nthing significant with their ediucation. Millfield would definitely NOT be on my list of schools (and a friend of Dh's teaches there).

Fettes of course has a stunning rep but I have no idea of any more about it.

if you're not prepared to stand by your principles that's fine, you and 99.9% of the world, but don't be putting yourself up as a representative of The People and standing for the job of MP. That's all.

ok zenia, so how do you suppose David Blunkett got to the position of home secretary? let's see, he went to a state, special, school. You see, his mum couldn't afford to pay for him to go to private school - she brought him up on her own as his dad died when he was young. And yet he achieved the position of home secretary and all without a private education - imagine that.

It does not follow that if you go to private school you will get a better job.

By Blunkett was sent away to blind school at 4. That's what gave him his chance in life and perhaps emotionally damaged him to but that's a separate issue. I accept that his blind school was state.

I am not sure Kelly or Blair would bein the positions there are in if their parents hadn't spent a fortune on their education. By the way I agree Millfield is where you go if you're not very academic which is presumably why Kelly swapped to Westminster S for the sixth form.

I suppose it's an instering point - you can pay to buy a better school but choose not to on principle. Mind you Blair just fixed it by sending them to a very distance state Catholic school and hiring tutors from Westminster to help his sons get to university.

I'm not sure that Ruth Kelly is trying to buy the best education for her children though.

What she seems to be saying is that the state provision for this child isn't good enough. And that is where she has a problem.

If she wanted "the best" and wanted to pay for that for each of her children, then that is fair enough and as a Tory I wouldn't have a problem. But to say that the state school should be good enough for everyone else but not for her child is unacceptable in her position. Either the LEA has a duty to provide suitable education and isn't doing so, or Ruth Kelly views that the standard of that education is too low. In either case her child is unlikely to be the only dyslexic child in Tower Hamlets.

Would love to know what the teachers at the child's previous school would say on the topic!

It's probably fairly likely there is very little extra help for dyslexic children in that local state Catholic primary and I expect the boy has fallen more and more behind and the parents probably have been paying for special dyslexia help out of school and still he's failing and this is hte last straw. The other analysis might be that he's not really very dyslexic at all but they always wanted him in a public school like his mother so this is one way to achieve that with a better excuse than they might have if they wanted to send his three sisters to board at Catholic St Mary's at Ascot.

I agree with Xenia that is seems very hard on young Eamonn Gadd is going to have two years living it up at St Snooty's Academy (Ok, yes I know ) only to be turfed out at 12 or whatever and be flung into some Tower Hamlets Carpetrite Academy with a specialism in ping-pong. That seems the worst of all worlds. I am also mystified by a special need that is so severe it cannot possibly be catered for by any primary in Tower Hamlets even with private tuition, yet is so easily treated that after two years young Eamonn will be fully 'cured' and able to take his place in an inner city comp. My understanding is that provision for special needs gets worse in secondaries, not better.
Yes, I sympathise if she has seen her son failing at school, possibly even unable to read, and I might well do the same in her place, but she's not Mrs Average, she's made her name and her living as part of a government that has run education in the UK for how many years now is it? She was Education Secretary for heavens sake. Surely this is a blatant admission that the schools aren't good enough and she should resign.

Could anyone on this thread today write an article about special needs and the problems and sent it to one of the newspapers for example? You don't need childcare to do that. You have a computer. Try it as an experiment. ??????? Xenia???

this is where I'd like to send my ds as a day pupil. Unfortunately with 4 children I'd have to earn a lot of money and be able to drive in 4 different directions at the same time. Dyslexia provision is truly appalling in schools in our area. I have just finished a specialist teaching course - had to make sure there was someone to keep an eye on the school!

Well, actually, if one of the eloquent mothers of children with special needs contacted one of the papers - like the Mail - and managed to convince them to commission an impassioned 1,000 word piece slagging off Ms Kelly and pointing out the torment/whatever their child has experienced in a state school (ideally their child should also be dyslexic) using a lot of personal detail from their own life and saying that government is to blame, then maybe they might make up to £800 out of it. It's topical, and if you called tomorrow am and wrote the feature by the end of the day, it might just work, but it's not a living!

Every parent has the right to send their child wherever they want. if a parent feels that state provision is not good enough for their child and they can afford a private education then it is up to them to seek the best education for their child.

BUT when its YOUR job to sort out education and to provide adequate eductaion for children and you have failed then it is unfair to use the money you have earned from failing to give your own child the oppertunity that your incompetanc has refused others.

as well all know some state schools are great, others are average, and there are a lot of downright awful ones. now my friend had dyslexia, it took until she was about in yr 9 or 10 for any teacher to realise this and get the appropitate tests and help for her. oh and guess what this was at a private school ... however my bil's nephew is also dyslexic. he is 7 at the local state school which is 3rd in the league in the borough, he's doing excellently. i think it really does depend on the school and if the schools in ruth kelly's area weren't what she felt suitable for her lo, and she can afford to educate elsewhere then goody for her. she could not possibly change the state system by herself ... she needed funds, and support from other people too.

ah i now see the issue. it was apparently a private special needs school? as in like the special needs schools that have all been closed? bit hypocritical! however i am of the opinion that for things like dyslexia etc which aren't too serious mainstream schooling (whether that be private or state) would be best so they aren't made to feel different to other children but better provision needs to be made for them. so yes i would be a bit cross too ....

Many children with dyslexia and dyspraxia slip through the net and both are serious problems. These children are not effectively helped and teachers are also not trained in helping such children. If it is thought that such things are taught at teacher training college - well think again. Trying to also obtain a Statement for children with dyslexia is damn nigh impossible. It is all down to money and LEA's will try any tactic to get out of issuing a statement.

I can see why Mrs Kelly chose to act as she did. Her actions show to highlight the poor state of SEN education in this country. If SEN keeps getting the cinderella treatment then small wonder its in a mess. There are decades of neglect and mismanagement here. Central government need to give more cash to LEA's and monitor LEA's effectively to ensure they are acting within the law (there are examples on this thread of LEA's acting illegally).

I also cannot believe the rubbish that Tower Hamlets council have come out with regards to "tailor made care" (yeah right), this from one of the poorest boroughs in this country.

Having read this , as always, the issue about SN needs provision is not just about having more specialist schools or more money thrown at the problem.

It apppears there is an unwillingness by LEAs to provide statements because of costs implications. Is that because the money is not there in the first place (something I seriously doubt when you consider how much extra money has been allocated to education by the treasury)? Or is it more the case that LEAs are unwilling to provide the additional services because they are of the opinion it is not value for money and it has a negative impact on their position in the league tables?

What about the schools themselves? I wonder how many successful schools (both state and private) are willing to trade their position in the league tables for altruism by accepting or acknowledging more SN pupils? More interestingly, will the parents at these schools be charitable enough to allow the reputation of their high flying schools to be compromised by accepting the educationally challenged? I think we all know the answer to that one.

After all the huffing and blustering, it appears to me that this issue suffers from "yes we should do something about it so long as it does not affect my little Tarquin or Tyler-Joe or Harriet or Britney's school" or the LEAs standing in general.

Parents of SN children really have my sympathy. Good luck

It apppears there is an unwillingness by LEAs to provide statements because of costs implications.

This is certainly true.

Is that because the money is not there in the first place (something I seriously doubt when you consider how much extra money has been allocated to education by the treasury)? Or is it more the case that LEAs are unwilling to provide the additional services because they are of the opinion it is not value for money and it has a negative impact on their position in the league tables?

As someone who has been through the system and come out the other side I think its because the LEA's are strapped for cash due to lack of sufficient funding from central government when it comes to SEN. The LEA dept who receives the funding is the same one who decides how the money is spent. In my view these ought to be separated. Many LEA's also operate outside the law laid down in the SEN code of practice (some 220 odd pages in length). For cost cuttings reasons and to save time many LEA's use the far more user friendly SEN Toolkit (only 24 pages). The toolkit is being misused by some LEA's as this is only intended to be a guideline; not for drawing up more rules or using same for costcutting services.

IN the case of compex conditions it isn't just about money- its about having suitably experienced (and interested) staff with support and training.

DS1 attended mainstream with a full time 1:1 - therefore his place at his current special school doesn;t actually cost that much more (think its about £3000 more expensive per annum). The educaitonal experiences don't compare. IN the case of some complex conditions the problems can be about misguided ideology (inclusion for all) and a lack of understanding of the needs of complex children. ]

A friend's very able (academically) child is currenly failing in masintream (can't get her through the school gates), not really because a lack of money- she is statemented with 0.9, but because of lack of suitable staff, no training, and a complete lack of understanding by the school of the complexities of her condition. When she spends 6 weeks in the specialist assessment unit she thrives (can't spend more than 6 week there unfortunately), when she goes back into mainstream it all unravels and falls apart again. The school do not need more money- they do not nbeed more advice- they have experts tripping over themselves in their, they need to start listening to the experts, and they need to start understanding the condition more.

Message withdrawn