End private education!

Submitted by cathy n on 4 January, 2007 - 12:43

By Tom Unterrainer

The former education secretary and current “communities minister” Ruth Kelly has caused outrage amongst teachers, constituents and fellow Labour Party members by deciding to send her son to a £15,000 a year private school.

Kelly has “defended” the decision by claiming her son’s dyslexia poses a significant problem that schools in Tower Hamlets, where she currently lives, cannot address. She claims that opting for private education is “the right thing” for her son. Kelly has exposed for all to see the rank, “do as I say, not as I do”, hypocrisy of this government, that claims to be backing and improving state education, but in reality thinks that private education is a better option — at least for themselves.

With their actions Ruth Kelly and the Labour Ministers who defend her back the principle that the sons and daughters of wealthy people have the right to a better education than others.

But all children, should have the same start in life. And all children should have access to the best education. Children with special needs are also entitled to the very best education, whatever is required to meet their needs. Private education perpetuates inequality between children, and in society.

And private education — and those schools, such as grant maintained schools, which have been set up within the state system to emulate private schools — are a drain on resources. For instance they take away teachers who have been trained within the state system.

The only way to tackle inequality in education is to end private schools and invest in all aspect of state education — if necessary by increasing taxes on the very wealthy and business. At the same time the labour movement needs to address the other ways in which Labour has introduced and perpetuated inequality in school education: through Academies, Trust schools, league tables and SATs.

---------------------------

Why Labour’s education policies aren’t working

Tower Hamlets is one of the most deprived areas in England but has an outstanding record on education. Of the twenty primary schools close to Kelly’s home, fourteen have special education provision described as “good”, “excellent” or “outstanding” by inspectors. Kelly claims that it’s common for students with special needs to spend time outside of state education – a point that I’d dispute – but she fails to explain why the “good”, “excellent” and “outstanding” schools in her local area aren’t good enough.
So why does Kelly feel it necessary to find provision outside of these schools when the Governments own inspectors think so highly of them? It could be that she really doesn’t think inspections are a good measure of standards or that her child deserves better than the best.
At bottom level, Kelly’s decision is little more than an admission that after ten years in power New Labour has not done enough for students with special needs. For this admission to come from someone who ran schools for eighteen months is startling. It’s an indictment of her own work as education secretary and a vote of no confidence in her successor, Alan Johnson. Rather than launch an honest debate in the interests of all parents with special needs children, she’s used her personal wealth to opt out of the system and cop out on an argument.
This is not the first time – and not the last, you can be certain – that such a scandal has broken. Remember when Tony Blair decided to send his children to a selective Roman Catholic school outside of his home borough?
What about the MP who removed her son from a London Academy due to the complete and utter mess the school found itself in. How are teachers, parents and students supposed to maintain confidence in education policy when again and again leading figures ignore their own advice? The truth is we should have no confidence in the politicians and policy makers. From Academies and Trust schools, SATs and league tables to inclusion and exclusion the government is way off the mark.
Government policy dictates that all schools should be “inclusive”, providing space and resources to young people of all abilities and backgrounds. It goes without saying the most teachers support this principle. The problem comes when it’s practised in reality – with current levels of resources and time is every child with a special requirement in receipt of full support? Is this fair? Kelly knows the answer.
Imagine that you’re fourteen years old with good verbal communication, an active imagination but difficulties with reading and writing. You’ve struggled with reading since you’ve started school and found the daily literacy hour at primary school tortuous. You get to fourteen and despite all your ideas and aspirations the school selects you for the “vocational” strand of the curriculum. You have loads of sport, activity lessons and you go off to college one morning a week to get a qualification. No more art and music — these are “academic” subjects remember. You feel completely unvalued and very resentful that subjects you love have been substituted for something more “practical”. You don’t feel included. Is this fair? Kelly knows the answer.
You live in a town with an academy, a trust school, a selective Church of England school and a comprehensive. Whilst the other three schools are in brand new buildings with loads of computer technology and resources, the comprehensive is housed in dilapidated buildings with ancient technology. The academy and trust school claim not to select on the basis of ability but take great interest in your reading age. The Church of England school gives preference to regular church goers. You’re dyslexic and Muslim. Only the comprehensive offers you a place. Is this fair? Kelly knows the answer.
Kelly knows the answer to all these questions because she and her colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills wrote them.
She shares responsibility for the poor state of resources and support for our most needy children.
She shares responsibility for the new 14-19 curriculum which advocates a two track system of education, a return to second class education.
She fully supported the Academy and Trust school scheme, championing the privatisation of our schools – and took the flack when criticism mounted.
Kelly knows that the system she helped to create favours the middle classes and socially mobile sections of society, those without learning difficulties and a flexible approach to religion. Kelly knows the answer, that’s why she abandoned state education.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.