BOLTON MP Ruth Kelly strongly defended her decision to send her son to a é15,000-a-year private school for pupils with learning difficulties.
Ms Kelly said she had taken the child out of the state sector after receiving "professional advice" that he needed specialist support "as soon as possible".
The local authority accepted her decision, the former Education Secretary revealed.
"Like any parent, my first thought was to do the right thing for my child.
'Advice'
"Acting on professional advice - which the local authority accepts - I am placing my son in a school that will be able to meet his particular needs.
"He will attend this school for a couple of years before he begins at a state secondary school."
She added in a statement that the taxpayer would not be asked to meet the costs.
"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 my case, I have not and will not seek the help of the local authority in meeting these costs," she said.
'Thanks'
Ms Kelly said her other three children would continue to be educated at the same school her son had attended.
"I would like to thank the local authority, the school and its teachers for all of the help and support they have provided to me as a parent and, most importantly, to my son and I pay tribute to their professionalism.
"I appreciate that some will disagree with my decision. I understand why, but we all face difficult choices as parents and I, like any mother, want to do the right thing for my son - that has been my sole motivation."
She added: "Bringing up children in the public eye is never easy. "It is particularly difficult when dealing with details of individual circumstances which any family would want to deal with privately.
'Publicity'
"I had hoped that would be the case regarding my son. And I am sure any parent will understand my reasons for not wanting to go into any more detail than I have to as a result of today's publicity."
Education Secretary Alan Johnson said Ms Kelly had "complex personal issues". Speaking to reporters at a policy announcement this afternoon, Mr Johnson said it was his "prerogative" not to comment on the row.
He added: "I'm not commenting on a colleague who has complex personal issues with a child."
IS Kelly right to take her child out of state education? Have your say.
PLUS: Take part in our Poll of the Day.
Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
The key issue for me is the choice that having money can give. £15,000 a year is hardly within the reach of most, assuming the local authority doesn't pck up the tab. So as long as the wealthy enjoy the luxury of a get-out it seems unlikely that the motivation will exist among the political and economic elite to ensure every child, not just those of the rich, gain access to the educational resources they need. as a former education minister this is something Ms. Kelly ought to understand.
Why not spend 15,000 on the education of your child ? It's only the amount of income the poor spend on keeping themselves more overweight than the rich as the report "Why wealthy are slimmer than the poor" proves.
Your vote misses the point.
One would expect a mother to do what she thinks best for her children.
The question ought to be: given the failure of state education to meet this child's needs, should the former education minister not resign as she clearly does not believe her government is doing its job properly.
Surely Ms Kelly should be congratulated? She could have applied to the local council for them to pay for her son's special needs care. But she has saved the local council that money which could have been £15000 x 10 = £150,000, by opting to pay for it herself! What is wrong with that?
The suggestion that the wealthy have a greater choice is not entirely correct. Bearing in mind that they will not be on council tax benefit, they still will be paying for other children to be educated through the council tax system, even if they decide to pay for their child's education. If we want equality they should be entitled to a tax rebate. There are many who could afford to pay for their off-spring's education but choose to spend their money on holidays and cars etc. It would be hypocritical of these people to criticise Ruth Kelly. The government should be encouraging more parents to do the best for their children and forget about political dogma which has no relevance in a free state.
I am far from a Kelly fan and will not be voting for her as my MP in the next election. I am a lifelong Labour supporter. However she is doing the right thing for her son. That should be the responsibility of any parent. Do the right thing for your children.
typical new labour hypocrit dont do as i do, do as i say .
What a two faced woman she is, when she's telling us that we MUST send our children to State schools, without the choice of Grammar and Comprehensive, then at the same time she takes her child out of State education and pays for him to go to a private school.
Special needs or not, the State always provides - might take a considerable amount of time, but hey Ms Kelly, that's the way of Government you serve.
Seems to me to be a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'.
Mrs Kelly is a senior member of an elected labour government. We expect them to make adequate provision for everyone in her position - and only by staying in the state sector will these power brokers and opinion formers change the system for the vast majority who do not have a spare ¿¿15000 a year. She has effectively bought a private lifeboat and left the rest of us to go down with the ship.
The Government has introduced a policy of incorporating pupils with learning difficulties into mainstream schools. It also advocates a policy of not "streaming" pupils by ability.
Then - a former education secretary in the same Government "Acts on professional advice" and puts her child in a private school with specialist support !
Hypocracy - yes...
They have messed up thousands of pupils education with their "integration of different abilities" policy - then act on other professional advice when it comes to their own children.
I do not dispute Ms Kellys right to send her child to a provate school - I dispute her right to remove her child from mainstream all-abilities included education when she has imposed it on everyone else
We all want the best for our children so why harp on about double standards? i mean she has her work and she has real life.
Like any competant politician never the twain shall meet.
the more ritch people pay for their kids to go to private schools the less there will be in state schools which means smaller classes and better one on one tuition for our poorer families children. hopefully!
Personally if i had the money my child too would go to private school.
I agree with Andy, and dont forget that to pay 15,000 a year under this government your actually have to have around 24,000 of disposable earnings before tax, which is pretty much the average years income for a person in this country.
Ms Kelly knows what she's doing. After all, she did preside over the very system she is avoiding. It just goes to show even the socialists know that money buys you the best.
ruth kelly is being very hypicritical.She is in a governemnt running education. In fact she was in chrge. So what is good for us is not good enough for her! She may have the money (paid by us) to send her child to a private school but most people cannot. She should resign!