Personally I reckon there is no arguement. She's a hypocrite. A sanctimonious one as well.
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/mortarboard ... .html#more
Good mother or hypocrite?
Good mother or hypocrite?
Hamster;509346 wrote: My business is in health and nutrition-would I be expected to explain to everyone why I chose to give my child a MacDonalds takeaway meal?You weren't personally responsible for dismantling local authority controlled special needs schools though. Unlike Ruth Kelly.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Good mother or hypocrite?
I think her choice speaks volumes on the state of 'state' education here. Obviously they dont have the special needs facilities to her standards. What does this say to other parents of special needs children? I think they need to bring the quality to the state education level. Every child should have access to that kind of education. Not just those with money.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
Good mother or hypocrite?
This woman was instrumental in the closure of many special needs schools, including one in my home town.
I expect many of the parents of the kids at that school would love to do what she has.
Instead they have to go to mainstream schools and lose out on the help they need.
Damn right she's a hypocrite.
I expect many of the parents of the kids at that school would love to do what she has.
Instead they have to go to mainstream schools and lose out on the help they need.
Damn right she's a hypocrite.
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
Good mother or hypocrite?
In the States, you send your kids to the school the district has predetermined your kids will attend. It is based on your geographical home of record. There has been some push for parental choice but it is always opposed by the teacher's union and many politicians. Of course, these politicians and many of the teachers send their kids to private schools while forcing low income families to keep their kids in underperforming and underfunded schools.
Good mother or hypocrite?
Exactly. Any child with special needs should be entitled to the attention they require to lead as full and normal of a life as is possible. It seems it's the money thats shutting them out. Why? LOL! Isnt that against the great 'human rights' principle of the labor government? Someone needs to take them to court for discrimination on the basis of financial situation. Make the price of great education come down. Because it's just plain wrong to deprive a child of a decent chance in life just because of money.
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
Good mother or hypocrite?
She presided over the closing down of special needs classes in state schools-they were just for kids with learning difficulties or physical disability but also kids with severe behavioural problems. The rational being that putting them in to main stream education would help end discrimination.
In practical terms it means they do not receive the one on one attention they really need but there is now no means to help kids with problems except leave them in ordinary classes, kids with behavioural problems cause immense disruption and teacher's spent time controlling individuals rather than teaching. Dyslevxic children are often very bright but if not helped become bored and sometimes sit and stir things up for entertainment, fristration becomes rebellion.
In my wife's school 28% of the first year intake can't read or write properly they should be in special ed clases getting help. There are kids that if they forget to take their medication become violent or hide under desks. She can actually cope being a rather strong character but what wouyld you do if you walk in to a class and one of them turns round and says &((& O*(&*^&! Naughty boy here's a punishment exercise doesn't really hack it.
Social inclusion as interpreted by some authorituies also means that disruptive kids can't be tirfed out-there is no place to put them, in practical terms a child that assaults another can't be expelled-instead they are back in class the next week but somehow it is the teacher's fault that bullying is rife, you can't belt them, you can't expel them there is no back up in special needs classes any more, schools and teachers get all the blame and responsibility but have no authority. Teacher's get assaulted but you never see kids being expelled or charged with assault as they should be.
This is the government minister responsible using tax payers money-we pay her salary remember- to sent her kid to a private school after presiding over changes to the state system that render the schools not good enoufgh for her child to attend. There are many families who don't earn what this school is costing. Too bad if they have a kid with special needs.
posted by raven
I think her choice speaks volumes on the state of 'state' education here. Obviously they dont have the special needs facilities to her standards. What does this say to other parents of special needs children? I think they need to bring the quality to the state education level. Every child should have access to that kind of education. Not just those with money.
That is the point, this is a labour government supposedly about social equality and equal opportunity. To deny other kids what she considers essential for her own is hypocrisy. To do it with taxpayers money adds insult to injury.
posted by hamster
Just how far do we take the contract she signed when she agreed to do her job though? Did she sign it to say she would involve her children?
She imposed a decision, ignoring all the experts, that affected thousands of children. Most parents don't have the money to have the same choice. If it was such a great govt policy she should back it in practice as well as in words. Were it not for her position no one would care what she did or where her kid went to school. She is the one that ended special needs education in state schools.
In practical terms it means they do not receive the one on one attention they really need but there is now no means to help kids with problems except leave them in ordinary classes, kids with behavioural problems cause immense disruption and teacher's spent time controlling individuals rather than teaching. Dyslevxic children are often very bright but if not helped become bored and sometimes sit and stir things up for entertainment, fristration becomes rebellion.
In my wife's school 28% of the first year intake can't read or write properly they should be in special ed clases getting help. There are kids that if they forget to take their medication become violent or hide under desks. She can actually cope being a rather strong character but what wouyld you do if you walk in to a class and one of them turns round and says &((& O*(&*^&! Naughty boy here's a punishment exercise doesn't really hack it.
Social inclusion as interpreted by some authorituies also means that disruptive kids can't be tirfed out-there is no place to put them, in practical terms a child that assaults another can't be expelled-instead they are back in class the next week but somehow it is the teacher's fault that bullying is rife, you can't belt them, you can't expel them there is no back up in special needs classes any more, schools and teachers get all the blame and responsibility but have no authority. Teacher's get assaulted but you never see kids being expelled or charged with assault as they should be.
This is the government minister responsible using tax payers money-we pay her salary remember- to sent her kid to a private school after presiding over changes to the state system that render the schools not good enoufgh for her child to attend. There are many families who don't earn what this school is costing. Too bad if they have a kid with special needs.
posted by raven
I think her choice speaks volumes on the state of 'state' education here. Obviously they dont have the special needs facilities to her standards. What does this say to other parents of special needs children? I think they need to bring the quality to the state education level. Every child should have access to that kind of education. Not just those with money.
That is the point, this is a labour government supposedly about social equality and equal opportunity. To deny other kids what she considers essential for her own is hypocrisy. To do it with taxpayers money adds insult to injury.
posted by hamster
Just how far do we take the contract she signed when she agreed to do her job though? Did she sign it to say she would involve her children?
She imposed a decision, ignoring all the experts, that affected thousands of children. Most parents don't have the money to have the same choice. If it was such a great govt policy she should back it in practice as well as in words. Were it not for her position no one would care what she did or where her kid went to school. She is the one that ended special needs education in state schools.
Good mother or hypocrite?
It's a typical "Do as ii say and not as i do"
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Good mother or hypocrite?
spot;509359 wrote: You weren't personally responsible for dismantling local authority controlled special needs schools though. Unlike Ruth Kelly.
That's interesting, I know someone who only last week got a job in one of
these schools. I must 'phone her, and tell her that she's now out of a job!
That's interesting, I know someone who only last week got a job in one of
these schools. I must 'phone her, and tell her that she's now out of a job!
Good mother or hypocrite?
Bill Sikes;509913 wrote: That's interesting, I know someone who only last week got a job in one of
these schools. I must 'phone her, and tell her that she's now out of a job!
There are still some for extreme cases.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4071122.stm
At present, she says these suffer from a "patronising" attitude, which limits their use to children with the most severe and complex disabilities.
"They are regarded as little more than places of containment, hospitals or day centres, but with better educational facilities," she writes.
these schools. I must 'phone her, and tell her that she's now out of a job!
There are still some for extreme cases.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4071122.stm
At present, she says these suffer from a "patronising" attitude, which limits their use to children with the most severe and complex disabilities.
"They are regarded as little more than places of containment, hospitals or day centres, but with better educational facilities," she writes.