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.