This afternoon Ruth Kelly, the now communities and local government secretary and [ironically of course] former education secretary, will announce why it is that she decided to send a child of hers with learning difficulties to a private school. Yesterday, the Mail on Sunday broke the story that a Labour minister had decided to take their child out of the state school system. In a rather extraordinary and highly uncharacteristic display of discretion, the MoS did not publish the name of the minister in question ‘in order to protect their identity’. The reaction to the story has been interesting.
The Labour party has remained fairly silent on the issue, with the exception of Norwich North MP Ian Gibson who is arguing, loudly, that Kelly is wrong to opt out of the state sector because of the example that it sets. Equally loud on the story, and garnering significant attention, has been David Cameron. The Tory leader, famous on two relevant counts - for having been privately educated and for also having a child with learning difficulties - has shrewdly taken the revelation as a fruitful publicity opportunity. For Cameron, the revelation has provided a whole host of opportunities: to speak when the Labour party have nothing to say, to display a slick expression of apolitical support for a ‘colleague’ [Kelly], and most importantly to highlight the responsibility that a parent has towards their children to choose a better education than is currently offered by the state.
Accusations of snubbing their own, mainstream schools is something that New Labour has of course faced before. The architect of today’s state schools himself and vivid dreamer of a closed gap between private and state school quality, Tony Blair, has been frequently attacked for swapping the local state school for his children in favour of far-away, Catholic grant-maintained ones. With Kelly, who has opted out of the state system altogether, the ‘slap in the face’ [as Gibson MP puts it] for the state system is of course much harder. The main concern in the ‘scandal’, and what has kept Labour in silence, is that members of the Labour party, a party whose core values rest on egalitarianism and anti-elitism, have acted against Labour principles. But it is Cameron’s comment on GMTV that Kelly’s schooling choice was a ‘personal matter’, summed up the real concern. Cameron argued in his breakfast interview that Kelly was a parent first and a minister second – in other words that the welfare of her child took precedence over her party’s principles. This prioritisation itself is far from lamentable; the problem is that in 10 years Labour has not succeeded in getting practicalities [satisfactory schools] in line with its principles.
Comments (2)
Kelly's action as a Labour MP? Another case of do as I say, not as I do. Cameron's position is worryingly unprincipled. He can't hide behind the understandable desire to do the best for his or Kelly's children. That's beside the point. If the leader of the Green Party used a gas-guzzling car because it was in the best interests of his children (i.e. to protect them) is it OK because s/he is a 'parent first'?
Posted by Jim Gourlay | January 12, 2007 12:08 PM
Posted on January 12, 2007 12:08
Nice to have the money to make the choice between state or private education, then again most ardent socialists seem to be of the wealthy variety.
Posted by mike | January 8, 2007 4:05 PM
Posted on January 8, 2007 16:05