Bad Egg

This time I've simply got to put my hands up and admit she's wrong.

Even though I went to public school myself, I'm totally committed to comprehensive state education and genuinely believe that segregating kids into different schools by ability (which 9 times out of 10 actually means segregating them by social class/parental income) is morally indefensible and should be ended.

Separation of children in the education system is not just Victorian but Mediaeval.

When it comes to having a child with learning difficulties it must be difficult on a personal level, but the same principles surely apply.

Segregation is acceptable only in exceptional cases where a child, for one reason or other, is genuinely unable to progress within a mainstream, integrated environment. That such circumstances apply must surely be a joint conclusion between parents and educators and not the sole decision of the parents, and I understand that this has been the case with Ruth Kelly's child. But the alternative, selective education should be within the state system wherever possible and have the objective of restoring the child to mainstream education as soon as practicable. On this point, even my employers can't help her tell a good story.

By any accounts, Ruth Kelly is an interesting character. It's not every Labour Party member who can claim to be Westminster School educated, an Oxford graduate (Politics, Philosophy & Economics) and LSE MSc., a mother of four, Papal Envoy to Britain, Minister For John Prescott's Former Responsibilities and a direct descendent of a man (allegedly) Quartermaster of West Fermanagh IRA Battalion.

Tony was forced to move "supermum" Kelly from her job as Education Secretary after a number of incidents that were not kindly portrayed in the media. These included her appearance as a mad monk in The Da Vinci Code and her pelting with eggs by members of Fathers For Justice. As I reported at the time, the announcement in August by Ruth of her decision to create "The Commission For Making Muslims Just Like Us" was nothing short of a master-stroke.

But her decision to enrol one of her children (sorry, but of course I can name neither the child nor the school for legal reasons but Google will readily provide you with the information should you be interested) at an elite private prep school whose per diem fees are greater than the UK average national wage is one that even the best of us in PR would have difficulty spinning.

From what I can see on reading the prospectus, this particular school appears to specialise not in the general well-being and rounded development of its children but in helping them pass public school entrance exams. It describes itself as the only prep school in the UK whose main aim is help pupils with learning difficulties pass exams for Winchester, Eton and Harrow.

The establishment is able to offer one or two services and facilities one might not expect to see in an average state school but which are presumably essential to the development of children with learning difficulties. These include a heated swimming pool, tennis courts, golf lessons, horse riding and regular overseas holiday trips.

But I don't just want to be cynical about this. It is unarguable that, if provision for special needs can't be made within the state system, parents should have the right to send their children to private schools. The one tiny little problem with this that I'm having difficulty getting my head around is that 117 special needs schools have shut since we came to power in 1997. And Ruth was Education Secretary when quite a few of them were closed... arguing strenuously that children with learning difficulties should be catered for in the mainstream education system.