What’s good for the gander is not necessarily good for the goose…
There are many irritating witticisms in life usually inflicted upon us by our forebears. Thinking about them briefly, i recall how many times i was told as a child to “do as i say, don’t do as i do” and yet in complete contradiction and with as great a frequency, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander“. I can remember many occasions being reminded, following profuse protestations on my part against some task or slight i was being requested to perform or have inflicted upon me that, “well, we’re not other people’s parents”. I’m sure you can all recall similar crushing put-downs used by the pater-familias in your family to which there is no (acceptable) comeback. In a roundabout and slightly tangental way, this brings me to my point in today’s blog.
Today saw the announcement that ex-Education Secretary, Ruth Kelly, would be sending one of her children to a private school, and not to a state school in the Tower Hamlets authority. Let it be made clear that this was following consultation and advice with both education and healthcare professionals who, having assessed the particular young Kelly in question, deemed him to have significant learning difficulties.
The argument being put forward by many is that this demonstrates a lack of confidence in the state system and that ministers such as Ms Kelly should send their sons to state school, regardless. One member of the public is quoted on the BBC news Website as saying “I’ve no problem with them sending their children private – as long as they admit the weaknesses with the state system.” (Paul McLoughlin, London)
I can understand and appreciate public concerns over the state of the education system. I also appreciate and sympathise with the apparent vote of no confidence in the system by ministers who helped create and shape it. However, the public must not jump to conclusions about the state of the education system based upon the private and considered action of a single MP.
Like any parent, Ms Kelly has the best interests of her son at heart. Having taken advice from professionals, she is concerned for the furthering of his education in an environment conducive for this to happen. As a child with learning difficulties, he needs greater attention than can be given him in a state-school setting and therefore, Ms Kelly is removing him from this stage to a place where his particular difficulties may be addressed and his needs catered for. She is still sending her other two sons to state school and, i very much doubt she is ecstatic about paying £15,000 a year to enable her son to go to a private school (though doubtless, parents cannot put a value on the love they have for their children).
I guess what this slightly protracted ramble is tapping away at is the rocky and hardened attitude we have towards the private decisions of ministers. We all want the best for our friends and family and should think about this before we make assumptions about the state of the education system based upon the private decisions of another.
I know there have been several cases like this, where ministers have sent their children to private school rather than state, but attacking them for it does little but damage people’s opinion of the education system which, by and large is populated by hard-working people deeply concerned with educating the future leaders and workers of our country. It is both demoralising to those working within the sector and not entirely constructive.
I for one support an MP’s right to send their child to a private school. They (generally) are doing their best to create a system of education that is available to all, not just those with money. The fact that they may have the resources to send their children to an institution which costs extra but may yield greater results is neither here nor there. Private choices should be allowed to be made privately.
7 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Whilst i realise it’s not exactly the ‘done thing’ to comment on one’s own blog, I just thought i’d add a brief afterthought in light of the coverage this story gained in the papers today (09.01.2007).
Some of the papers (The Guardian and The Daily Express to name but two) list other MPs that have gone down the same route as Ms Kelly, amongst them, Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman, Diane Abbott (who had peviously criticised Ms Harman for the very same thing…pot…kettle…), Paul Boateng…..the list goes on.
There is plenty of opinionated commentary throughout all the papers on this issue, civilian firebrands giving their tuppence worth and general discontent with the move made by Ms Kelly.
Despite this, i still find myself in support of her move. To me, for her to choose to send her child to a private school because of his disability is not a vote of no confidence in state schools. What Ms Kelly has done is in essence, no different from one person buying one particular brand of car over another – it is not indicative of their lack of confidence in the sidelined brand, rather their preference for the other, for a potential legion of reasons. To extend this metaphor to its very limits – one could suggest that Ms Kelly has favoured a 4×4* over a motorbike – it’s larger, more capable and provides better protection to its passenger. In any case – Ms Kelly has made it quite clear that once her son is no longer in need of such specialist care and education, she will return him to a state school or, i guess, at least let him ride pillion…
*no comments about who should/should not drive 4×4s etc etc ;o)
As the presenter at BBC News at 10 last night puts it, the debate here does not necessary lie in the fact that a Labour MP has let a child go to a private school, but that it’s about “special needs”. These two small but significant word in the now overly politically correct focused society means that Ruth Kelly is almost forgiven with sympathy.
That being said, why should the public decide which school a child should go to – whether he/she is the offspring of a MP or not?
I have no problem with what Ruth Kelly has done. She has not chosen to educate all of her children in the private sector — which would be quite remarkable for a Labour former cabinet minister (not to mention former education secretary) after 10 years in power. In the case of one of her children it seems that she did not feel that local state provision adequately addressed a special educational need for that child and has found a private alternative which does.
However, on one level Labour have no right to complain. Many Conservative ministers and MPs sent their children to private schools during their 18 years in office — and were attacked strongly by Labour for doing so. As you say in your blog “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”.
I think Ruth Kelly has done the right thing by sending her child to private school, Kelly has simply chosen what she believes the best option for her child who has special educational needs, any mother would surely do the same. I also think it is natural that Kelly should put her family and her role as a mother first above that of her political career.
I doubt her career will suffer from this incident; she has not totally snubbed state education and indeed sends her other children to state schools. Also luckily for her, she is no longer education secretary!
I agree that Ruth Kelly has to make her decision as a parent first and politician second, however, the irony of the situation would suggest that something has to be done to improve inner-city schooling.
Hallo!
hey… what unbalanced comments!
what do you consider about it?
How do you mean unbalanced? I think all the comments made are well thought out and reasoned. What is your take on the situation?