Mumsnet Discussions - AIBU to expect the private-school-using TA at ds's primary school not to slag it off?

From this weekend's FT... [ and for the record I think she's wrong and should have kept the children at the schools to which they were used - the oldest boy was at Eton and I think the one being pulled out after one year]

The choice that no parent wants to make

By Mrs Moneypenny

Published: July 4 2009 00:38 | Last updated: July 4 2009 00:38

“Vale, heroum filii.” I hate saying goodbye, even in Latin. It is hard wrenching yourself away from a place where you feel at home, where the buildings are familiar, the teachers are supportive, you have lots of friends and where you believe you have been part of a pre-eminent educational establishment. And that’s just how you feel as a parent. Imagine how your child must feel.

Because Moneypenny plc has not been immune to the recession, the cost centres are about to become the reduced cost centres. Managing a business is one long risk-assessment exercise, and the question CEOs have been asking themselves in this recession is: what are the risks of continuing to spend at current levels while revenue plummets? Finance departments have been modelling and remodelling to show what would happen if sales fell to 2006 levels, or worse. Running a family is just the same – what are the risks if bonuses and dividends are not forthcoming for the next few years? In our case it would have meant that CC#2 might well have had to come out of school halfway through his GCSE syllabus, and changing school at that point is very tough. So we decided to eliminate that risk by removing him from his senior boarding school after only a year and sending him to the local selective day school. And his younger brother is coming out of his heinously expensive prep school and being sent back to the local village school where he started his education.

CC#1 is not immune from all this; he is off to university this autumn and we have combined cost management with a revised incentive scheme. We will not pay his fees, so he will have to take out a loan. But if he returns after three years with the same class of degree as me, or better, we will write him a cheque to cover the fees.

These are all significant changes, and, like the ones I oversaw at the office earlier this year, they were undertaken with a heavy heart and, I admit, more than a few tears. At the board meeting to discuss the restructuring (at our dinner table) Mr M advanced argument after argument for continuing to outsource the CCs to boarding school (what we have done for one we ought to do for the others etc etc). But in this economic environment, there are no sacred cows, and while I agree that CC#2 was getting what is probably the best education money can buy, was it really going to deliver him a three times better result in life than the next best alternative? Because, make no mistake, it costs three times as much. I also realised that most of the reasons that Mr M and I felt so sad about CC#2 in particular were on our own account, not his. We have felt privileged to co-parent and educate our children in a historic school with fantastic teaching staff. It is very sad to have to say goodbye.

But CC#2 is a diligent and ambitious student, who will succeed wherever he studies. And we are not the only people to review our personal expenditure. At every level, the people I know are cutting back, although all things are relative. Mr M and I dined recently at the home of a man who has more people on his personal payroll (crew for the yacht, gardeners for the house in France and so on) than I do in my business. But the cook has gone, and our host barbecued for us, and sent his wife out to buy the cheese. (And still found time to show off the lighting system in his basement loo – what is it about boys and toys?)

The rich and/or famous are not immune. Our friends the Famous Couple celebrated their 10th wedding anniversary the other day. They told guests to bring their own tables, chairs and cutlery for a picnic dinner and found the ultimate boy with a toy – a hedge fund manager with a disco kit – to provide the 1980s music. Lots of parents will have to make tough choices in this recession, and I hope boys, not just ours, will look back and realise that, wherever they went to school, they are still heroum filii."

I think that of all the 'choices' in education, selection is the most unfair.
It is very divisive. I know of twins, very similar in ability, where one went to the grammar and one went to the secondary modern. My best friend at 11 was a very clever girl, but her father was in the army and they moved every 2 years.
My DH won a full scholarship to a private school at 11 but his brother (intelligent but in and out of hospital until he was 8yrs)went to the secondary modern. He left at 16 and has gradually worked himself up to a very good job and he flies all over the world. He educates his DCs privately; he could see that his brother had all the advantages. This is where I fall out with Dollius, who after having a top public school education would like to ban everyone else-why shouldn't he pay for his DCs education when he has worked so hard?
If I look on friends reunited my old classmates have a huge range of jobs-fascinating reading, they are not where you might expect.
When my DS was 7 I started to look into private education because I thought he was another borderline case. Before I got very far down the line I married again and we moved out of 11+ area. When he got to 11 I think he was borderline but in year 7 he came on in leaps and bounds and by 12 he would have passed. He was in a comprehensive and so moved up to top sets.
I think there is a lot wrong with the comprehensive system but it does allow movement up and down. A DC who hasn't found their feet at 11 can do it later.
I shouldn't get so emotive about the 11+ because it probably did me a lot of good! There is nothing like failure to spur you and think 'I'll show them! When I finally got to the grammar school, at 16yrs, I fitted in without a problem (I would have fitted in at 11).
Being told that 'thrown on the scrapheap' is an old cliche annoys me and brings back the old feelings-it certainly felt like that at 11yrs.

This thread has been interesting reading though the subject matter always fills me with apprehension as my children are so young and I have all this anxiety ahead of me.

Just had to interject on the subject of Grammer schools, as although the use of the emotive phrase 'scrap heap' by piscesmoon is perhaps overly dramatic. I have to agree that they had the, not necessarily desirable affect, of deciding a childs future at 11.

My parents are a case in point as Dad went to a Grammer school in Liverpool in the 50's and went on to University, the first in his family to do so. My mother failed her 11+ (had no idea that it was in any way important that she passed) though she was clearly a bright girl. Was considered factory fodder and left school at 15 with no qualifications.

State education should make provision for children according to their needs of course but I think streaming on the basis of tests etc. can be a blunt tool. Especially as well heeled parents will always ensure their child is well tutored before any test. So economic/ social divides are maintained.

I'm not sure that link was particularly myth exploding though.

Abolishing grammar's will end selection in education.

There has always been selection in education, whether by money or by religion etc.

It's like an MN thread. smile

Crikey, well I'm not a planner I'm afraid. I think Life Happens too, and I think it should as well.

I think if we were working from scratch, then I'd support UQD's theory. In fact when you think of it, there is a wide choice of education in this country - just as UQD always patiently points out, it's not a choice open to very many at all, and is therefore not really a choice.

So if all the wide variety of schooling options remained the same, but attending them weren't dependent on anything at all - including academic ability - it might work.

Some will chose the school down the road because it was good enough for them, some the school in the woods because they hate formal education, some public schools just because, steiner schools, others the old private school, others the grammar. It's radical, it'd certainly shake things up a bit. But imagine the threads! The agony! The choice!

No, I'm not missing your point UQD. You are telling me that making plans is futile because plans can go awry. I am telling you that that fact doesn't stop people making plans.

When I planned a career I factored in lots of stuff, but one of the things that was relevant was money. I wanted to buy a house, have holidays, have children (and pay school/university fees) and pay for retirement. This meant that certain careers were not a sensible option. I chose accordingly. Some people would think this sort of attitude is mercenary but I just thought it was practical. The fact that I may get run over by a bus tomorrow or contract some awful disease doesn't stop me planning. I am not unusual in this.

I entirely agree with pisces about the problem being the 93%.

Not if you failed at 11 UnquietDad-I can assure you that I felt consigned to the scrap heap! When I told people my ambitions they said 'can you still do that?'!! and yes I did do it-the hard way as all the other highly intelligent people did who were failed by the system. Unless you have been on the scrap heap you can't know! It isn't a cliche. The whole thing is a ridiculous waste of talent. I was border line and took it 3 times in all. The third time there were 2 places and I was 4th. At some point you draw a line and there is absolutely no difference between between the one above and the one below. If I had lived on the other side of the river my marks would have got me a grammar school place. My brother failed and then passed when he was 12yr. At 13 he was put in the express stream with the high flyers-he was the same boy! A truly dreadful system IMO. No one was moved down if they failed to perform and many left and got a job at 16yrs, having taken a place.

I think the "scrapheap" thing is an overworked cliche myself. Sorry.

The problem with grammar schools is that they give the DC with above average intelligence a good education and consign the rest to the scrap heap! The slightly above average, the average and below average deserve the best education too and it doesn't help to cream off the top end.

Quattro, the point I'm making is not that I'm necessarily a more relaxed sort of person. Anything but, really. (Sorry to harp on about this but I feel you are kind of missing my point.) What I'm, saying is that you can organise your life and think you have your career/child/income "choices" sorted to the nth degree, but then Life happens. Nobody's life ever turns out quite the way they planned it.

The first point 100x makes is the eternal one about grammar schools, and probably will never truly be resolved as everyone has anecdotal evidence to prove their view of things. But one can easily find articles that support my, and others', contention that grammars were good for bright pupils from not-so-rich backgrounds, such as this one:
here
And here is some myth-exploding from the NGSA.

I realise my plea for focusing on the child is not a template for a perfect system, but surely as a general rule we have to admit that admissions by wallet, mortgage or superstition are the LAST things you would actually choose as criteria if you were setting up a school system from scratch?... Does anybody actually want to argue otherwise?

You cannot buy intelligence It doesn't matter how posh the school or how much you have paid. On the contrary, it is a greater achievement for your DC to do well in a state school than having to pay for their results.
Having experienced both, unless in inner London, would not waste my money on the private sector.

The fact that 7% of the population pay for private education is insignificant in the grand scheme of things-it is the other 93% that needs sorting out!

"I'm just not convinced you can micro-manage your future life to that level." Well of course some people's plans go awry. But that doesn't mean that people aren't busily making plans for their own future. And for the people who do make plans, money may or may not be a factor. I'm an inveterate planner of course and my sense is that you're a more relaxed sort of person. That doesn't make anyone's choices wrong here.

The point 100x makes is absolutely relevant. People focus on the inherent unfairness of independent schooling (though why independent schools rather than faith schools, or quality state schools via houseprices remains a mystery to me). But there are so many inequalities way before a child has reached 11.

Really? That's tough isn't it? My impression is that poor kids didn't go to grammar schools, but I might be wrong, it'd be interesting to know.

In a way it also highlights the problem with UQD's proposed system: it is very difficult to extricate the child from the parent, especially at 11.

Any 'advantages' the parent might have - more money, books at home, fridge full of food, a commitment and belief in the value of education - are advantages that the child will inevitably share. As such it's very difficult to make it totally child centric.

God yes it happened to my uncle in the early fifties. HT told him he needed to see his parents as he had been accepted at the GS but when he said his Dad was on nights and his Mum was out at her cleaning job, the place was pulled, he never heard anything about it again sad

oh dear - grammar school.

I do wonder how many truly disadvantaged children did attend grammer schools though? Back in the day.

I reckon the middle classes have always been a wily lot, the 'pushy parent' isn't a totally new construct, even if tutors are.

dh's brother got into grammar school, they had to pull him out after a year because they couldn't afford the uniform. The uniform fgs.

I had a two practice papers administered half-heartedly by my state primary before sitting the 11-plus. I lived further, (20 miles) from the grammar school than any of my classmates there. The pupils who lived close to it and looking back, had obviously been tutored to with inches of their lives, really did struggle to keep up.

Naice gels they were but I wish more people like me from scutty backgrounds had been given the chance to attend because these girls were from families who were loaded compared to mine and my friend who had to leave at sixteen.

piscesmoon - yes, but you're talking about the system as it exists. I'm not, necessarily.

Part of the problem is (I agree) that the grammar school system has become swamped by "pushy parents."

Why? Well, partly because demand outstrips supply. There aren't enough grammar schools. And all the main political parties, sadly, are committed either to cutting them back or keeping the current numbers.

It definitely wasn't overrun with "pushies" when I went to grammar school in the 80s, and there were a lot more of them then. No coincidence.

'That's why I actually am in favour of some form of academic selection, because even though that's not ideal, it's one possible deciding factor which actually seems to come back to the child.'

Have you not seen the many threads on 11+ selection? I have been told that you have to prepare the DCs these days, just doing a few test papers isn't enough. Some of them have tutors from year 3. If parents don't get a tutor they make sure their DC works at past papers. One reason that I was pleased to move away from 11+ area was because I saw several DCs get a place through pushy parents who drilled them-they shouldn't have had a place IMO. It was well known that many struggled to cope once they got there.
I get really cross when people trot out the old chestnut of 'it helps the DC from the disadvantaged background', they say that knowing that they will do whatever it takes to claw that place for their own DC! If they take the exam because they are bright but have no parental support they are up against those who have been taught how to answer the questions with at least 12 months training.
The middle class parent manipulates selection in the same way that they manipulate the comprehensive system.
The education system isn't fair-even if the 'powers that be' try to make it fair people will find a way around it!

Loshad, I can complain all I like, but I can't change the culture around here.

Schools in my area are fiercly socially divided. The unpopular schools are full of children from families who don't seem to aspire to much, who don't value education and who are living in very difficult social circumstances.

The behaviour of children in these schools reflects the general culture of disrespect.

Our selective system concentrates all the most difficult children together in one place, just like our housing system shunts people with social problems all together into big council estates which then turn into hell-holes.

I'm just not convinced you can micro-manage your future life to that level. Especially when you look at the number of people who have been left high and dry by recent events.

Hmmm, wasn't there a thread on here recently based on an article about the number of people pulling their children out of private education? because their lovely "plans" and their "career choices" had all rather gone down the plughole? Oh, I think there was.... How do you know you're not going to get divorced, lose your house, be sacked? How do you know you won't have a second family and need to provide education for them, too?

The way I see education at the moment, I've always said - often, on here - that there should be a suitable alternative to state provision for children who would benefit from it. The problem we currently have is that there are alternatives, but they aren't necessarily for the children who would benefit. They're for the parents. Almost every method of "choice" we currently have is parent-centric. School admission may depend on:

-the wealth of the parent
-the mortgage of the parent/ location of parents' home
-profession of the parent
-faith of the parent

etc.

That's why I actually am in favour of some form of academic selection, because even though that's not ideal, it's one possible deciding factor which actually seems to come back to the child.

If I were setting up a genuine, radical, "independent" education provision for the first time - for those who would be "square pegs" in the state system for whatever reason - the admission system would be focused on the needs of, and benefits to, the child. That's obviously a big matter for debate and I can't do justice to it glibly here. But I know that, if I were making a list of criteria, the fatness of a parent's wallet and the variety of imaginary friend believed in by the parent would be BOTTOM of the list.
As they should be.

' education is not a commodity and should not be able to be "bought". '

It shouldn't, but it is now a commodity and can be bought!
Last year I went to lots of University Open Day visits and nearly every potential student had at least one parent in tow. This is because it costs a lot and parents want value for money. In my day taking a parent would have been deeply embarrassing-you went on your own.
Parents shop around for the right school. I don't see much difference between paying school fees or buying a house in the 'right' area. I am very anti grammar schools and moved away from a grammar school area. However, when I came to sell my house one of my chief selling points was that it was in the grammar school catchment area and I mentioned it to anyone that I showed around. (I didn't mention the fact that it was in the secondary modern catchment area!) It puts house prices up.
State schools do their best to 'sell' themselves these days-my DSs comprehensive wants good A'level students -from other schools-and has a super glossy brochure and even had AA signs around the town for their open evenings and huge half page adverts in the local papers.
Education is a commodity-you are fooling yourselves if you think it isn't!

Agree with sabire. An expensive education buys not only the right accent but the confidence to even aspire to some careers. Not to mention networking.

It's all very well saying that some people make bad choices, but if you were privately educated yourself and had supportive parents, books at home, financial subsidies, and zero anti-social neighbours and peers, then you are starting off with a massive advantage.

Brightest girl in my class at school wasn't even allowed to come back after the official leaving date and sit her GCSEs. She had to get out and earn money or be thrown out on the streets.

She did extremely well in the end. Not as well as she could have done if her home situation had been different, not by half. Not well enough to afford private schools for her children but they are all warm, fed, clean and will be able to study beyond the age of sixteen.

So far at ds's school the teachers he has had have sent their dcs to state school. They teach ds and don't gossip about what their dcs do and don't do at school and I wouldn't expect them to. If the TA has seemingly a big issue about the state school then maybe she would be better off obtaining her experience in a private school.

As for the usual private education equals privilege tosh, I went to state school and have a good career. I was the second person to go to university on either side of my family (my brother was the first). 25 years later I am still the second as no-one else has done so from our extended family. Both my parents left school at 14, no choice about that. They encouraged their dcs to make the most of opportunities which we did. Ds is at private school in the hope he can replicate the excellent state education that I was lucky to have for free.

eerm "delighted" can spell, can't type wink

sabire, I totally agree. I would complain to the senior management team at your dc's school about the poor behaviour of some of the pupils so they realise that parents do mind, and want schools to allow teachers to teach, and that poor behaviour can have consequences. I expect most of dc's teachers will be perfectly happy if you do so (if not deighted).

I was actually buying setting, wrap around care and boarding potential when I sent ds to prep; those things aren't available in the state system.

Had he not gone there, I would have been unable to go on a school trip to Ypres and the trip would not have gone ahead from my comp. I paid for ds to board for a week out of my own pocket, after the RN sent dh to sea unexpectedly and couldn't look after ds, so that the school trip could go ahead. I could not have done that had he attended the local village school.

"but an awful lot of people make career choices based on having sufficient income to follow a certain lifestyle".

My DH would have made a great GP. If he'd chosen this as his career path he might be earning 100K by now and we could have our children in private education.

Unfortunately for him he's the son of a care assistant and a railway worker, and he himself went to the local crap comp, where NOBODY ever went on to do science A levels, let alone get into university to study medicine.

He feels he's done pretty well to have got a degree and a PHD in chemistry, all things considered, and to be earning 50K a year. Had he gone to a good private school he would have aspired to a better career - he would have seen it as his birthright, as so many privately educated people do.

"They don't think "I'm going to have X children in Y years, going to School Z, for which I will need £XYZ. I will earn that in * years."

Really? No-one plans for the number of children but an awful lot of people make career choices based on having sufficient income to follow a certain lifestyle.

Absolutely sabire - education is not a commodity and should not be able to be "bought".

Loshad, however you want to spin it, it's not fair that someone's chance of success in education are affected so profoundly by their parents' income.

My dc's will go to the local crap secondary, where there is a lot of low and high level disruption. DH and I work hard and earn a reasonable income between the two of us but we can't afford private education for our three children and keep a roof over our heads.

I can't think of any way of explaining this situation to my dc's that would make them see it as fair.

But you did say "if they elect to pursue careers that are not sufficiently well-paid to make private schooling an option, then that was their choice."

Is that not a hugely simplistic approach to a complex issue? Career "choices" are not cut-and-dried.

I would disagree with the fundamental assumption underlying that statement - namely that you can make that "choice" with complete freedom at a certain age and be able to affix a future salary to it.

Who is to say what is to be a "well-paid" career in 20 years' time and what is not? If my DD wants to become an actress, she could be Kate Winslet or could earn a pittance. Even something as formerly solid as working in a bank is now a wobbly career.

And people change careers midstream, and some decide (or even don't decide) to have children at unexpected times. They don't think "I'm going to have X children in Y years, going to School Z, for which I will need £XYZ. I will earn that in * years."

"...but to suggest that people on ordinary lower-middle-class incomes in semi-detached houses - for whom school fees are in the realms of fantasy - only have themselves to blame because of poor career "choices" is immensely offensive."

I'm not blaming anyone. Nor am I suggesting that anyone's career choices are poor. What I am saying, which is perfectly rational, is that people DO make career choices and if they decide to choose better-paid (note better paid NOT better full-stop) careers which enable them to fund their children's education, that is their choice.

It's only a matter of time IMO before that sort of effect starts really affecting higher education. There's already some data showing that children from less affluent backgrounds are more reluctant to take up large amounts of debt. How long before the "better" universities start being able to charge higher fees?

I am a teacher and choose to send my kids to state school. I have no opinion though on teachers who choose to send their kids to private school. I dont see how it has any bearing at all on their job.

I so agree scaryteacher. I work in a very challenging state comp - I work long hours there and many more at home. I sweat blood and guts to improve the exam results of my pupils. I could not possibly do my job without being dedicated to the system and I passionately believe that a good education creates choices and opportunities for all pupils. BUT and it's a big one, our local comp is dire - it's had three heads in 4 years, doesn't currently have a head and has no governing body at the moment either. My DH and I could have moved 20 miles north of where we currently live. To where there are great state schools, I could have gone to church every week and got into the very far away Cof E school and that would have been OK, but because we choose to spend our money educating our children, and so DH can abide by the rules (some of his fellow consultants do not) and live close to his hospital so he can easily and quickly get to his patients if required when on call, or even sometimes when not on call, our behaviour to some people on here is "not fair" and so forth hmm

scaryteacher: I think this has been debated before. The argument that education is not (or should not be) a commodity in the way that cars and holidays are. Your choice of car does not affect or comment on or otherwise relate to anyone else's choice of a cheaper car. "Choice" of school, though - a loaded term - cannot be seen in isolation.

What I just don't understand is why one can't spend salary on educating your children if you want. People don't judge about new cars, foreign holidays, lots of clothes etc, so why judge about education? We all support local schools through taxes, but they don't provide the wrap around care that some preps provide for instance; and that care package allows people to work, especially if their partner is away and can't help out with school runs etc, and they have no family nearby.

What a lot of rubbish being talked on here. I don't know anybody who "chose their career" with the planing of school fees in mind.

And if they did, well, events of the last few months must have put a bit of a rocket up their complacency!

Quattro, Xenia, please, just take a step back from your posts and look at how patronising they sound. You may not have intended it that way, but to suggest that people on ordinary lower-middle-class incomes in semi-detached houses - for whom school fees are in the realms of fantasy - only have themselves to blame because of poor career "choices" is immensely offensive.

(I have a lovely RP accent, by the way, and I went to a state school.)

Less likely to pick up bad grammar and a common accent from other state school pupils surely, although I'm not saying that's the major thing for which I pay? it's self evident and if two people both with AAA at A levl and 2/1 degree from a good university go for an interview and one cannot talk in the way customers of that business expect them to talk and the other can then the one who will fit in best with the customers is likely to win (unless we go back to the days when you couldn't get a job at the BBC unless you had a regional accent in the70s or 80s or whenever that was when it operated in reverse).

The biggest divisions are in teh state sector where ifyou're better off you get to go to good comps, church schools or grammars. If you're poor you don't as we dont' pluck children from poor areas and put them into good grammar schools any more by and large.

I pay principally for segregatino by IQ level really

'Plus they tend to get a better accent too if you pay'

{Puts on tin helmet}

I was going to quote Xenia thinking it is every woman's duty to have a highly paid job to earn school fees!
I disagree with Xenia on just about everything regarding education (and have done so on other threads!). However I would defend to the hilt her right to have her beliefs and send her DCs to a fee paying school of her choice.
The point that I am trying to get across is that although I am happy with state education I am equally happy that people have the freedom to opt out and pay. Their taxes still pay for state education and they are freeing up places in the best schools (those who pay would certainly make sure they got the best places if they had to use the state system!)
I object to being told that I must use state education for the common good or that as a teacher I have to use my DC to prove that I believe in the state system, even if it might not be best for my DC).
If we want to work towards the common good it isn't the 7% who use private schools that we need to target, it is the vast majority of middle class parents, like me, who 'cherry pick' the best schools. I would love all state schools to be wonderful, but in the meantime my DCs come first and I will do my utmost to get them a good education.

The fact 100% of the movers and shakers (and by the way it's not 100% but it's certainly m ore than 7% who went tio private schools) go to private schools shows that it's worth paying if you want your child to succeed. It's the best thing you can spend your money on for themr eally and a good reason women should get decent careers which earn good money so they can fund their chidlren's education.

If 2% of the leaders of companies, the cabinet, those who run hedge funds, top doctors and lawyers went to private schools you might start to convince me that paying was not worth it. Plus they tend to get a better accent too if you pay.

"Again, we have to be very careful about this phrase "freedom of choice." It is only a genuine choice if it is available to all - if the polar opposite is not a choice but an imposition or a Hobson's Choice, it's not a genuine one."

My take on freedom of choice wrt independent schools is that parents DO exercise that choice when it comes to the type of careers they pursue. If they elect to pursue careers that are not sufficiently well-paid to make private schooling an option, then that was their choice.

If you get Xenia on this thread she will tell you that she deliberately chose a well-paid career so that she could afford independent schools for her 5 children.

I'd speak to the headteacher as volunteers should have a honorary contract which means while they are not being paid they still have to abide by the same rules of conduct ie confidentialality/ professional behaviour as the paid staff.

That is the main point MissM-it is very unfair and lots of people, like me, get the best out of the system. The 7% who pay are neither here or there-in fact they are doing a favour opting out as they would take up places in the best schools, if they used the state system. By choosing the nice little village school dollius is doing nothing to help the majority and I bet she will choose a high performing secondary school. She is doing what a lot of us do-manipulate the system, and in many ways this is worse than opting out IMO.

Hmm, I'm still none the wiser!

Actually I'm not that fussed about private education per se (although I make the choice not to use it for my kids). What I think is more unfair is the so-called 'choice' we have for state schools. Only the middle classes really have a choice, as only they can move to an area with 'good' schools, only they can afford (or have the means to) send their kids half way across London/the county to a 'better' school than the local comp, only they have the resources to get into a selective school in a not so great area (the ultimate unfairness I think, that selective schools are allowed to exist in the middle of council estates - I've seen it).

'I'm a bit confused Picses that you say you did well in the state sector and so did your DCs, so why so vociferously argue the case for private education the way you do?'

I think I'm a bit confused-and more than a little awkward!

I agree that all state schools should be so good that no one wants to pay-and Huffs friend would actually be forced to look at her local school in case it is better!
I think that it is unfair that there are superior schools that can only be accessed by people with money.

However -no system is fair and people will always do the best they can for their DC. I get the best that I can from the state system and not everyone is in the position to do that. Going to a pleasant small village school isn't going to raise the standard of a large primary in an area of huge social deprivation.

Above all I believe in freedom of choice and if people want to spend their money on education I think they should be free to do so-especially as many scrimp and save to do so.
The main thing that annoys me is that my family have been using state education since 1870 or whenever the first education act was passed. I just find it rather annoying that someone who has had the best education that money can buy (and probably their parents and grandparents)suddenly decides that it isn't fair (nothing against that for their DCS)-I just don't think everyone should be told that they should do the same. Since I haven't paid for education I think it is only fair that I get a chance to do so if that is what I want. As it happens I don't -but I should be able to change my mind.
I suppose it is rather similar to a born again, evangelical Christian preaching to those who have been quietly worshipping without fuss,all their lives-I find it annoying! I also find it annoying that a teacher,just because they teach in a state school, has to send their DC to one when it isn't going to make a jot of difference to their teaching ability.

I don't know if anyone can follow my somewhat perverse argument!
I am for freedom of choice above everything else and if you stop people paying for education it still won't be equal-some are always more equal than others. It is human nature.

Ooo I was wondering where Unquiet Dad was - am honoured to have you on a thread I started.
I agree totally that if it's only 7% why do we worry about it, but in the area I live it's more like 40% and there is a lot of doing-down of my local (inner city) school, because you'd have to believe it was crap to pay vast amounts of money to drive your child to a school with no/tiny playground. And as I said before, almost 100% of the children of those with power and influence go private so it is disproportionately significant.
I asked a friend recently why she went private and she said "everyone knows that in this country it's the only way to get a good education". It turns out she has never even been inside a state school. I asked her why she didn't visit her (outstanding) primary and she said she didn't need to as she'd read the ofsted. And I said, but it's outstanding. And she said, "I know, but I didn't believe it".

Well I live in London, and I didn't go to a private school, nor was my secondary education that great. But I am very well educated and fully intend to send my children to state schools when they're old enough. I'm a bit confused Picses that you say you did well in the state sector and so did your DCs, so why so vociferously argue the case for private education the way you do?

Unquiet dad is right - it's not a real choice. Mind you, you're also right - there's little real choice in the state system either for those in certain catchments and on certain incomes.

Piscesmoon, I think you make a fair point. In terms of raw numbers it really shouldn't make a difference. (Although bear in mind places like Newcastle, where the ratio is 89-11 - more interesting.)

I think the problem arises when people start using the private sector as a stick to beat the state sector with. And have to justify their "choice" of private school by doing down the local comprehensive.

And, without wishing to exaggerate the issue (and without any actual statistical data to back this up) it could be a problem if a city's "movers and shakers" (MPs, councillors and businesspeople) largely use private education, and so don't have much idea of what using a state school is actually like.

I am about to go off to work so will finish -but if only 7% are using private education-does it really matter,or have any bearing on the performance of state schools? If it was 50-50 I can see it would be an issue-but not 93 to 7! (unless you are a very envious person)

Yes - 95% was a good guess, if it was a guess. From some of the discussions on here you'd think it was a mainstream issue and that the private-state divide was more like 50-50.

I was close then.
The regional variations were interesting-not surprisingly the really poor areas don't have independent education as a choice and they have the poorest schools. I don't see how using state education in a commuter village helps them in any way!

piscesmoon - it's 93% nationally but with huge regional variations. I linked to this recently, with some interesting discussions following.

here

Data is 3 years old, I'm afraid, but it's the best we have.

There is no choice anyway in the state system,UnquietDad-you try getting into an oversubscribed school if you aren't top of the criteria list!
The whole school choice thing is a complete myth-it should read, 'freedom of choice if there is space'. Therefore you could say that those who opt out and pay are doing the rest of us a favour by freeing up spaces.

There is no fair system. Dollius is making a great deal out of doing what 95% of the population (not sure of correct figure)do anyway, but carefully 'cherry picking' the state school she uses. Would she stick to the same principles if she was living in London?

Again, we have to be very careful about this phrase "freedom of choice." It is only a genuine choice if it is available to all - if the polar opposite is not a choice but an imposition or a Hobson's Choice, it's not a genuine one.

'But I don't think you should have to downsize your house, never go on a holiday again etc to pay for your children's education. A good education should be free for all.'

I know lots of parents who do this-they do it because they think it is worth it. It is their right to do it it, without someone else telling them that they can have a week's skiing but they can't pay for education.
They are 2 systems that operate side by side. I have friends who went to private and state themselves, send their DCs to private and state and have family members who use private as well as state.It isn't them and us.Even if people can't afford it they can aspire to it.
It is like the old story about the difference between the Americans and the British-the American sees a millionaire drive past and says 'I am going to be like that one day' and the Brit says 'it's not fair why should he have it when I can't have it'!
A good education should be free for all, if it was there would be no need for anyone to pay. However, in reality it isn't and never will be-or not until people come out of their 'nice little villages' with 'nice little village schools' and opt to live near work and send their DCs to the nearest inner city school.
I always stand up for state schools and am anti grammar schools, however I think it is more important to have freedom of choice. There are state schools that my DCs would go to 'over my dead body'-I would do everything to keep them out of them and would HE if no alternative.
I have used the state system and am perfectly happy with it, and would stick with it if I won the lottery, however I resent being told that I should use it!

'the rich can buy themselves places at the top and they are paying to keep others out'

Not me. I pay for a broader curriculum and wider sports and music facilities. There are grotty rich children in my son's prep school. There are grotty poor children in my daughter's state primary school.

The rich ones just have better technology. There's no easy way of saying this but there are lots of children whose parents earn a lot and have a sense of entitlement, which their children have picked up on. They may have the money but they ain't got no class.

I taught at a private school, was offered a 40% fee reduction and turned it down, as my lad was going to a different prep that provided wrap around care so I could work. Interestingly, the HT that offered me the fee reduction sent both of his sons to my sons school, but his daughter to his own. Go figure.

I then went back into the state system, and needed the wrap around care even more. I didn't choose the local village school as the HT was weak, and there was far too much bullying and teaching to the SATS, and no available child minders either, hence prep (and the opportunity to board if needs be).

Of course it is irritating to hear this from me. I had all the privileges, so of course I can afford to say what I do. My DH and I commute a long way to work so that we can live in a nice village with a nice village school.

That, in itself, is a choice we are privileged to be able to make.

I completely understand where you are coming from.

But I don't think you should have to downsize your house, never go on a holiday again etc to pay for your children's education. A good education should be free for all. With the system as it is, the rich can buy themselves places at the top and they are paying to keep others out.

That's why I hate the two-tier system we have. It reinforces this awful class thing we are all so obsessed with in this country.

I honestly would feel prouder to live in a country which genuinely offers the same opportunities to everyone. This country does not - in a large part because of the two-tier education system.

It's easy to scoff at this sort of idealism and say "it's never going to happen". But that's probably what a lot of people said to Bevan when he thought up the NHS.

'It does seem that there is evidence for people getting jobs in private schools just for the fee reduction, although I am sure this is not always the case'

I know several teachers at private schools and the reductions they receive are insignficant. At many schools they barely exist.

I do feel that I am getting at you a bit dollius-I can't help but get irritated by your attitude! You and your DH both went to top, well known, private schools and suddenly you don't think this isn't fair (no argument with that at all-it isn't)and good for you if you want to break the mould and use state education for your DCs. I went to a secondary modern school (a very good one)and onto the 6th form and university. My parents would have paid for my education when I failed 11+ but they couldn't afford it for 3 of us. My DH won a full scholarship to a private school-there is no way his parents could have afforded the fees.
I just rather resent being told that because you want to think of the common good, everyone should do the same. Why can't I have my turn for private education for my DCs if that is what I want? If I want to downsize my house, never take holidays and never go out for meals etc, but pay for my DCs education that would be my choice and I don't think it fair that someone who has already had the best education money can buy tells me that I shouldn't do it or I shouldn't do it because I teach in the state system.

I can't believe I am having this argument because my DCs have all been through the state system. However, twice I have contemplated paying, but didn't in the end.

I get the best out of the state system. I moved to my town purely because of the schools. Is that any better? You may be intending to use the state system dollius but I can bet you pick your schools and live in a nice area-you are not going to be sending them to an inner city sink school for the common good-is it any different?

As a teacher I may want the challenge of taking on a failing school-it doesn't mean I want my DCs to go to the school.

It is a bit late for me, but obviously a teacher shouldn't even mention that they have DCs and if they do they should keep very quiet about where they go to school if parents think it has any relevance whatsoever to your teaching abilities!

"Freedom to choose" is a very important right, but the phrase is abused so often by politicians - usually from the Right - that it sets my teeth on edge.

(They use it to mean "freedom to do what you have the financial wherewithal to do" - a very different proposition indeed.)

pisces - you may well be right. Perhaps I do have a bee in my bonnet in some sort of rebellion against my parents.

Whatever my motives, at least they are geared towards the common good, rather than just what is best for me, me, me.

And I really think this "choice" argument is such a red herring. Most people don't have that choice to exercise, and are not "free to make their own arrangements".

I don't think I am telling people what they should do. I think I am just arguing for what I think is right. That's the whole point of these debate forums, isn't it?

Doh! I obviously came to this thread late and so I have noted some interesting comments as usual.

It does seem that there is evidence for people getting jobs in private schools just for the fee reduction, although I am sure this is not always the case.

Once again private education is being bandied about as a "choice", which is such a misleading word. It would be a genuine choice if the alternative were, also, a choice. Like a choice between green and blue paint. But it's not. The vast majority of parents have no choice over where they send their children to school. That would be fine - it could even be democratic - but it's skewed by people buying themselves out of the democracy in various ways.

Teachers' own "choices" are interesting. I wouldn't automatically be suspicious of a teacher who had a downer on state schools for her own children while bigging it up as being good enough for mine, but she would have a hell of a lot to prove in my eyes. (DD and DS's teachers have been young unmarried women so far, so the issue hasn't arisen.)

The call for genuinely "independent" education is an interesting one. At the moment that does not exist. People who think private schools are "independent" are kidding themselves, or are calling them that because it sounds better.

I would genuinely love there to be some form of real independent alternative to the state sector for children who would genuinely benefit from alternative approaches to learning. And that means one which doesn't depend on how fat a wallet you wave. It won't happen.

Sounds very unprofessional if it is true.

Don't worry though - a lot of private school users routinely slag off the state sector to make themselves feel better about spending squillions on what other people get for free.

That's great huff - sounds like you did some good there. Well done.

Most people do actually support their local schools-the huge majority go to them!
If they want to do something different-e.g. go to one outside the catchment area, pay or HE that is their choice. It seems to me dollius that your parents opted out and you think you are doing a huge thing by opting in; if you want to do it- then do it because you believe it is best for your DC and leave people free to make their own arrangements, without telling them what they should do. I have always supported local schools and so did my parents, but we can have the freedom to choose not to, if we wish!
I think you did a good thing Huff, if you made her realise how careful you have to be.

Wow, good for you. What a grown up way of handling things! Good to vent on MN isn't it - that way you don't act before you speak (which I regularly do) and can let off steam anonymously!

Well done huff. Sounds like you handled it brilliantly.

I also wish people would do all they can to support local schools - such as actually sending their children to them.

Final word on this saga - I spoke to her this morning and I must admit I think I had over-reacted and most of the gossip was at best exaggerated. At the same time, she admitted that she had had discussions about the school and that she hadn't realised how easily open to intepretation they could be.
However, it was a very civil and open discussion and I'm really glad that I spoke to her and not a) the head or b) any other parents. She also said that she found it valuable to know that you have to be incredibly careful about what you say as this sort of thing spreads very easily and people are naturally sensitive about the choices they make for their dc.
I'm also very grateful to have had this discussion on mn as it gave me a chance to vent in inflated terms and calm down before speaking to her.
Still think that people ought to do all that they can to support local schools though...

Btw no I didn't speak to the TA as she was late and I had stuff to do. I did pass her as I was on my way in and she was on her way to her son's school and I felt my blood boil I'm afraid.

At DDs private prep some of the teachers/TAs send their DCs to state schools. I have never considered that they are less good at their job for having their children educated in a different place.

I wouldn't have a problem with any teachers at DS state school sending their children to private schools. In fact I would see this as a good thing. They would see what is happening in the private sector and gain good ideas to implement in the state schools. Both sectors should learn far more from each other.

I think the situation is different if you are an MP in a party that is in government and therefore in control of the country's education system. If labour MPs send their children to private schools or even grammar schools they are showing they don't have confidence in the state comprehensive system which they are responsible for.

It has got right away from OP-I think everyone has agreed on that one-and it has gone back to the usual state v private.
I also think independent is the key word. They exist quite happily side by side. I have been very happy with the state education in our area, but I can see that I might have had one DS in an independent school and two in the state, or all 3 part state part private. People should be free to do what they consider best for their DC and not have other people trying to force their opinions on them-or even give their opinion.

MissM - because I chose a different school for my DD for many reasons. The local state school allocated us is actually a very very good school with a great OFSTED, fab reputation, etc. But for many reasons we did not feel it was the school that best suited the needs of mine, DHs and DDs needs. Wrap around care so that I could actually work in a state school wasn't provided for one, and no local childminders - so if I had sent DD to that school I wouldn't be putting my efforts into working in a state school at all!

As islands... states: lots of other system based reasons too; nothing to do with my faith in the teachers.

And yes, independent is the key word.

Besides this still gets away from the OP's main point re the TA. I stated my feelings regarding that previously.

dollius - quit the patronising love [hmm} Maybe I just feel passionate enough about the job I am employed to do for me to take the time to put my points across. But hey, you obviously don't want to listen. At least the schools I have worked in and the parents of the children I have taught have chosen to judge me on the work I carry out, rather than a preconcieved idea of what I may be like.

Because they are not allowed to teach in the way that I want my children taught.

In a state school my children would have to sit SATS, they would not be able to take part in as much music and drama (not eI am talking about my local schools not all state schools here).

Also they would have to be in composite classes of up to 30 children instead of single year group classes of 20 children.

Its not about having faith in the teachers, but in the system itself.

I chose INDEPENDENT education, not private education. If the same type of education was available in the state sector I would jump at it.

When you are choosing a school for your DC there is only one consideration IMO, and that is whether it is the best school for your DC. This is something I might discuss with friends, but as a teacher I have no reason to discuss my choices with other parents. If you can afford private education it widens the choice. Your system of 'fairness for all' was called communism dollius and didn't work! People have to be free to spend their money in the way that they want to spend it.
I know where a few of my DC's teacher's DCs go to school (mainly if it is the school they teach in-(there have been threads where mumsnetters resent that!)but on the whole I haven't a clue if they even have DCs, and it really doesn't matter.
Until you rid your mind set of 'private= superior' you are not going to like it Dollius.
My DCs comprehensive has just won the local debating competition-they were up against private schools.The runner up was also a comprehensive.
I agree with OrmIrian.

Hulababy and Islandofsodor you have indicated very clearly how dedicated you and your DH are to the pupils you teach. So why not show the same faith in the mostly excellent teachers who teach in the state sector and send your children to state schools?

Actually I wouldn't like the idea of seeing a Dr who did private work outside his NHS work (if I knew that is - and I wouldn't necessarily know). My dad was a consultant for 30 years and never touched private work, and never would, and gave me very sound arguments for his choice.

I think the main point as others have said is that this TA is possibly making unprofessional comments and shouldn't be doing so within the classroom or school.

huff - did you say anything to the TA?

I don't think it matters whether the TA sends her DC to a private school or simply a different state school, she shouldn't be discussing their abilities and progress with other parents in that way. Assuming that she is of course.

The only one sounding hysterical is you doilus.

And as for private medicine. My dh chose to spend £2k that we didn't really have in order to have a private op last year in school holiday times so as not to disrupt the education of his students. He could have got full pay whilst off sick and having the op on the NHS but those resources would then have been lost to the school on paying expensive supply alongside paying him.

I don't think you can equate the education of your children with a one-off treatment by a doctor or a dentist.

They are entirely different things,

And I don't think anyone is unworthy of dealing with me or my children. That's the whole point of my argument - I would like to see a much better level of social justice for everyone in this country.

You are starting to sound a bit hysterical, love.

I'm not asking you to justify anything to me Hula.

And yes, I don't like those other things either. It's just that we are talking about private schools here.

Presumably you also do not wish to be treated by any doctor who supplements their income by doing private patient work on his days off.

And you don't wany to be seen by a dentist who choses to have private patients alongside NHS ones.

Because let's face it - this is also paying for privledges. So, are those doctors and dentists (and other similar types of professionals) not committed enough to the state provision, so not worthy of dealing with you or your children?

Sorry dollious - none of your arguements match up with what is actually happened out there in state schools where teachers who use the private system owork.

If you want to pick and chose your teachers you will be potentially losing out. I assume you also would feel the same about teacher parents who:

* use money to move into the better catchment area to ensure their child gets to the rght state school

* pay for tutors, Kumon, etc to give their child a better chance of getting into a state grammer school

* use their regilion ( or newly acquired religion ins ome cases) to ensure their child gets the the faith school with the best results

etc.

Or is it just private school using teachers you have a problem with? And if so, why (hinestly)?

As said before, I use the private system for my child (no need to justify reasons to you, suffice enough they are good enough ones for me) but work in the state system.

You claim I am not committed enough to the state system?

Hmmm...so the 3 hours I spent last night creating a book of Y1/2 children's stories in order to have it produced for the library count for nothing then? The fact that I will spend another 3 hours later finishing it, scanning in pictures and story maps they have created, importing photos of them at school,, typig up their stories from their phonetically spelt storiy plans.... Not to mention the several hours spent in developing the special literacy support group that I have run since January for these children, and delivered at 8am three times a week. All the time spent producting materials, assessing their work, purchasing resurces (sometimes at my own cost). Or the ladybirds I carefully transported to and from school each week, so that they didn't die over the weekends - so that we could study them in the support group. None of this equals committment then? I obviously could go on and on - the support group is only one aspect of my work.

When I am at school my children and the staff have my complete and utter dedication, efforts and commitment.

When dealing with my DD's private school (I voluntary work there 2 afternoons a week) - yes, they get the same too.

You see I am a professional regarding my work. My pupils are my priority regardless of who they are or what school they go to.

That is why your comment is offensive.

of course they were fairly and democratically elected etc, etc, but don't you think it's a bit weird that we are still being by this tiny pool of people? Or is it just this amazing coincidence that a disproportionate number of those most 'able' to govern happen to have gone to the same school/drinking society?
Piscesmoon, we too have chosen the local state for 10% ideological reasons and 90% because we genuinely felt it was the best school. I wouldn't send my dog to some of the private school options around here which don't have a playground. I always am a bit taken aback by all this talk of private school's facilities when the ones we saw had no/minimal outside space.

But I suppose I wish they would, Katie. Because if everyone did that, then everyone would be better off.

'I don't know, albinos. And yet weirdly, I can think of no well-known albinos, but our next pm and chancellor as well as our mayor have all been in this tiny coterie...'

They were voted in by the electorates of their constituencies in free and democratic elections. You're making it sound like it was some kind of aristo coup!

In the seventies Britain was run by a coterie of trades unions leaders whom no constituency had elected.

I would send my DCs to private schools for the small classes or because they offered something in a specialist way that my DC needed. The fact that other people think it is 'better' is up to them. I'm not expecting everyone to be the same.
I have 3 DCs and as they are now older I can say that they wouldn't have had any more choice if they had been educated privately. They are doing what they want to do-which is all you can hope for.
A friend's son has just gone to teach in a private school 'massively dominated by the wealthy middle and upper classes'(to quote). He is shocked by the fact that some get £250 a week pocket money (so was I!). Needless to say there is a massive drug and alcohol problem. As a general rule, in my area, the 'posher'the school, the harder the drugs!
I agree with buying yourself privilege. A lot of people scrimp and save, doing without material comforts, holidays etc (obviously not £250 a week pocket money ones!)to pay for their DCs education. I would do so myself if necessary. I don't see why people are free to have 2 weeks in the Maldives, buy sports cars with personal number plates or bet it all on a horse but can't spend it on education because someone else thinks it is 'unfair'. If I want to do this as a teacher it has nothing to do with the way I teach.
If you can afford it and think it is better dollius I would send them to private school. I think with DCs you should do what is best for them and leave ideology out of it. It isn't going to work if you think you are making a sacrifice and then get cross with those who don't. Teachers are not a breed apart-they can have the same choice as anyone else.
Are we supposed to make the same fuss if teachers at private schools send their DCs to a state school-or is it OK if they can't afford the fees and not OK if they just prefer it?
It may come as a surprise but a lot of people choose state education because they think it is better for their DC.

UK always is top of those "most unequal society" tables, along with Portugal and the United States. We also have a well-established private school system whose products are over-represented among those with authority. The Bullingdon Club in oxford, entirely made up public school boys, is a smaller group than, I don't know, albinos. And yet weirdly, I can think of no well-known albinos, but our next pm and chancellor as well as our mayor have all been in this tiny coterie...
Anyway, the important thing about this link between an unequal society and private schools is that the more unequal a society, the more unhappy everyone is ie not just those at the bottom but those at the top too.
But anyway, have got away from my original rant about the idiocy of local mother's gossip about schools...

You are right of course Dollius
But you can't really expect individual families to sacrifice their own DC on the altar of 'the greater good'

You're making exactly the same point as me, Katie.

Children are influenced by their peers.

That is why it would be of benefit for those who are disadvantaged and perhaps come from families on the "margins" to be educated alongside those who have greater advantages/aspirations around them.

Just as you said in your very good post about grammar schools.

Thing is, while we all rush to keep our darlings away from those kids, nothing much is going to change for them, is it? The cycle just keeps on going and it is my opinion that segregating children according to wealth/class the way we do with private education merely furthers that cycle.

People don't become "Karen Matthews type people, burglars, smackheads" at the age of 5.

Last time I heard you were at school til at least 16, by which time they could be well on thheir way to it.
I really don't want to get into this sort of an argument , I don't want to be put in a situation where I have to put down kids who have been given a rough start in life.Its not their fault .But peers have a big influence on children and i would want my kids surrounded by children who aspire to what I consider to be the right things.

Everyone's assumption is that private is better. Why would anyone pay so much money for something that they did not think is better?

I personally do not believe private schools provide better teaching. The best and most dedicated teachers will always be found in the state system in my opinion. But private schools have much better resources and are massively dominated by the wealthy middle and upper classes.

As for jealousy, well I was privately educated and so was my DH (both of us at top, very well-known schools). We will probably be in a position to privately educate our boys if we want when the time comes, but I want to use the state system anyway because I don't agree with being able to buy yourself privilege. DH agrees with me.

My DCs are not at the 'bottom of the heap' because they go to a comprehensive!

I think it boils down to the fact that you are jealous dollius! Your assumption seems to be that private is better. I have been quite happy with state education for my DCs. If I had decided to send them to a private school, I don't see why it is any concern to the parents of DCs I teach.

It's not just another choice, though, is it Pisces?

What about the choices of those without the resources to pay? They stay at the bottom of the heap, while the 7% who can afford to pay stay on top.

Choice has got nothing to do with it.

I hope that you feel very smug about that because you certainly sound it.

Becky- I think that blithely believing that little Johnny will lift himself out of poverty because other children in the class are more 'middle class' is rather naive

I will have to disagree with you becky because I have seen it happen a lot .I think your post actually contradicts itself.Grammar schools worked and do work for working class children exactly because it lifted the children away frsm their peers and into a 'middle class' environment where university and career aspirations are the norm.
Bamboo-maybe my kids are missing out by not rubbing shoulders with the offspring of 3rd generation unemployed and smackheads ,but I'll take my chances on that one !

'Dollius I will put my head on the block too and say I am absolutely with you 100%. If someone teaches in the state system yet sends their kids to private schools then that to me is showing no faith in the system they are employed by. '

I think this is utter rubbish! You have no idea why people choose the education that they choose or their DC, and it is making it into 'them and us' instead of just another choice.
In one of the schools I go to (state), one teacher sends her DC's to the local private school, and in her class she has one of her DC's teacher's DS. Neither side, or anyone else for that matter, finds this odd.
All you require from a teacher is that he/she is good at their job-how they choose to spend their money isn't of any importance at all.

"those kids might have a better chance of escaping the "margins of society" if all children from all walks of life were educated together"

Do you think it works though, other that for very few who would probably haul themselves up by their bootstraps anyway? I went to a truly mixed comprehensive school in an economically depressed part of the country. The only ones of us who went to university were children of professionals. The kids from the estates left at 16 to get jobs if they could, or go on the dole. I thought some recent statistics showed that it was the generation before us, where poor kids had the chance to go to grammar school, that had the greatest social mobility, and that social mobility had declined since the late 70's (coinciding with the introduction of comprehensive schools and Thatcherism ...).

I'm not for a minute suggesting that children should be segregated by social class or anything like that, but I think that blithely believing that little Johnny will lift himself out of poverty because other children in the class are more 'middle class' is rather naive. It seem to me that there are many more factors at work...

But they are not are they doillus. Instead those who can afford to buy houses in the affluent catchment areas are educated separately.

Besides, until the government abolish all SATS and start to value the arts better I don't want my children educated in any state school.

People don't become "Karen Matthews type people, burglars, smackheads" at the age of 5.

"Karen Matthews type people, burglars, smackheads." Do you think that these people are prevalent in the education system? I think that your posts are very bizarre and narrow minded and also quite misguided.

But, Katiestar, those kids might have a better chance of escaping the "margins of society" if all children from all walks of life were educated together, rather than segregated at the age of 5 by this two-tier education system we have.

Not bizarre and sad at all. Parents in the class can be a nightmare. I know some who are so pushy and it is not good for their children.

The dc's school has special days where all parents spenmd a morning in the class watching and taking part in activities. They also have grandparents day.

I think it sounds like a case of chinese whispers !

Bamboostalk -By 'People who live on margins of society' I was thinking of Karen Matthews type people ie those whose parents have never had or have no intention of getting a job (as a lifestyle choice).Those whose parents are smackheads or burglars.

'My ds' teacher doesn't let the parents anywhere near the classroom!'

How bizarre and sad.

How is it patronising that dh wants to make a difference. Isn;t that the whole messgae of al the teacher training ads, that as a good, enthusiastic teacher you can make a diufference to the children you teach in whatever school in whatever sector.

I find the attitude of some posters on here quite amazing.

We chose a school based on the specific things we wanted for our child which may not be the same as another parent wants. We did not chose the very pushy, posh prep school or the local primary where only SATS results count. I know parentsa of children at both schools who are very happy with them.

The schools in which dh teaches are in a different LA to where we live and if we lived in that area no doubt they would be considered. However at least one of his colleagues is leaving due to poor senior management. Another school is fantastically resourced and having attended their summer production last week I am very impressed with what the children achieved, there are some very talented kids there and everyone is given the opportunity to take part.

However although to my dh teaching is a vocation, the fact if life is that teachers take jobs where they can. Dh would love not to have to travel for example but there are no jobs available closer to home.

If you are happy with your child's school for your child (and remember your child's teacher may live in an area where the local state alternative is totally different) then you should not waste time or energy worrying about where your teacher's child may or may not be educated.

HOwever gosspi about individual schools/children is unprofessional in all sectors.

yes, sorry - 'parent' wasn't accurate, but essentially unpaid helper... are there not any other unpaid helpers in the school then? informal head chit chat wouldn't work then, sorry!

Madwoman, she's not a parent-helper because her child is not at the school (cf her remark about she "wouldn't send her son there"). She is a woman who has given up her job and is thinking of becoming a teacher and so is doing this volunteer TA thing three or four mornings a week at the school as experience (she's not getting paid, I presume). I think she's doing it to find out if she likes working with children, but I presume also that it looks good on applications to do a teacher training course. Presumably it's better for her application that it's at a state school.
My ds' teacher doesn't let the parents anywhere near the classroom! Possibly no bad thing...

huff, i'm confooooosed.
is she a TA?
or is she a parent helper?

no such thing as a volunteer TA round here, you either are, or you aren't. (we have parent helpers who spend pretty much all week in the classroom and know every child's inside leg measurement as well as running intellectual scoreboards in their heads, but they aren't TAs...)

we do however have ishoos with parent helpers (and the occasional TA) gossiping about the school externally, and tbh it really grips me. our head is always interested to know if there are rumours in the community, and occasionally gets all the helpers in for a coffee and chat on some other pretext (to thank them for their help etc) and also takes the opportunity to remind them about their confidentiality responsibilities. no names, no pack drill...

i know it's all hearsay - depends on your head really. ours is quite on the ball and can deal with this stuff without it being a witch hunt (despite the fact that sometimes i would really really like a good witch hunt... blush

)

"I don't want my kids to go to school with those who live on the margins of society." what an extraordinary comment. Define margins of society please. Do you those who live in council housing, those who have no home, those in care? Which part of society is good enough for your children?

There was something on the today programme recently calling for more information about how people in positions of authority (politicians, bishops, head teachers, editors etc) educate their children. Obviously there are privacy issues, but at the same time I think there would not be this presentation of state schools as these other/under worldie hell holes if more of above people sent their children there. Although it's only 7% of children who go to private schools, it appears as if it's 93% of people with influence and authority, and the remaining go selective/religious a la blair. I don't know why I expend so much energy on the issue when it should be a non-issue given the tiny minority who use private schools, but I am always being forced to question my decision to go state (because we can afford private) and whether I am somehow failing my child. When I'm just sending him to the nearest primary school and he's 5 ffs. People like Mrs X only increase this defensiveness.

'The state education system' is a huge very varied entity. My kids go to a small village primary with a max of 20 children in a class -usually much less ,and a grammar school.I am happy with those choices.However if I lived in the catchment of rough low achieving schools then I would think very differently.
Somebody said 'its the schoolmaster I pay ,but the schoolboys who educate my son'.there is a lot of truth in that.I really wouldn't want my kids to go to school with others who had low aspirations or badly behaved or who live on the margins of society.
Educational results reflect the schools intake.I bet i could pick out which reception children now who will pass the 11+ in yr6.

he wasn't/isn't the only one

patronising gits

Dollius I will put my head on the block too and say I am absolutely with you 100%. If someone teaches in the state system yet sends their kids to private schools then that to me is showing no faith in the system they are employed by. To me this is double standards. If you don't agree with the way the state system is run then don't work in it. I also find the comment 'to make a difference' quite patronising.

Tony Blair was supposedly a Labour prime minister, yet he showed no faith in the system by sending his children across London to a selective school - to me that's a similar thing.

'A: She plans to get a job in a private school so she can send her kids there and get a fee reduction when they are older.'

So far as I can tell most private schools have now stopped giving any kind of meaningful fee reductions to employers' children.

Perhaps this unfortunate and bitched-about woman possibly just likes being with children and helping them. Perhaps she wants to be a TA to have longer holidays with her children.

Huff - that is what I thought. She does need to think about her vocation and hence my earlier comment about her motive for TA volunteering and becomig a teacher.

It seems like she views high achieving high pressure, high pace independent schools as the ideal.I cannot believe that when she becomes a teacher she intends to do anything else but get a job in exactly that kind of school.

She will get a rude awakening though when she realises that very few kids have the ability or inclination to live with that kind of school. Indeed, she may well be terribly disappointed to find that her own son does not meet the crieteria to get into one of those schools.

I expect he will be coached to within an inch of his life seen it happen.

It is very unprofessional for her to talk about it-she simply shouldn't do it. However, the teacher's choice of where she educates her DCs is a different issue and isn't relevant.

Maybe I shouldn't have couched this argument in terms of private vs state, though I think there is some relevance. Having slept on it, I'm still convinced that, assuming it is true, it is very, very unprofessional of her to talk about the classroom outside of it. I also think she needs to think very carefully about her vocation if she sees education only in terms of attainment - this is not hearsay because she has said to me she finds "mixed ability" a difficult concept. In whatever school she teaches in there may be children who aren't high achievers and they are as deserving of their teacher's respect as anyone.

'I think I would have an issue with my son being taught by someone who uses private schools for their own children.'

I don't have a problem with this at all. The only thing that matters is 'are they a good teacher?'
You seem to be implying dollius that the private system is superior. I am quite happy with my choice of state schools and wouldn't change it if I could afford to, therefore I couldn't care less what my DCs teacher does with his/her DCs-it isn't relevant.
Lots of teacher in the state system send their DCs to private schools and lots of teachers in the private sector send their DCs to state schools.

The people who send their children to state school know that the teachers are professional and competent, with the requisite qualifications, and that is all they need to know imo. My politics are my own; as is how I spend my salary. I teach according to the curriculum so my values are none of their business. Also, like many other teachers I do put my money where my mouth is buying resources for the classroom so that the students can have decent resources/pens/pencils/rulers, when the parents do not provide them, or cannot afford to.

If you would not enquire about the sexual orientation of a teacher (do you object to your children being taught by homosexuals?), then you have no right to enquire about how a teacher educates their own children. It is intrusive and has no bearing on their ability to teach.

Considering that my dh teaches in a school 40 miles away from where we live I don;t think that is an option somehow!

Completely agree Huff.

And, crikey, Scaryteacher - you really are scary.

Blimey, I'm not suggesting that parents be allowed to quiz teachers on their educational choices, religious beliefs or sex lives. However, I do agree with Dollius in that I want teachers who are committed to the school in which they are teaching in. That does not mean that they have to opt for the state system (although that would be nice). But what committed does mean is that they should not go around bad mouthing (allegedly) the school to people who are bound to know children at the school or may have even been considering it themselves.
Generally I'm a bit fed up with the fact that the state schools in this country, although used by the vast majority, seem to be denigrated in the press (apparently no national newspaper editors send kids to state schools) and demonised. I think that it benefits everyone, however they choose to educate their child, to support their local school in whatever way they can.
And breathe...

The bank clerks and the doctor are not educating my child, though, are they?

The parents who entrust their children to you for their education have no right to know anything about your values and whether you actually put your own money where your mouth is?

I don't buy that at all.

"So that he can try and make a difference." I honestly believe that you would make more of a difference by putting your own children into the school.

And no, not looking for a barney. Just genuinely interested in your perspective. Just really want to know if I am missing something here, and so far I can't see it.

I would still prefer my children to be taught by people who also use the state system for their own children.

I don't know. I am not IofS or her DH. grin

But personally I can understand why someone would choose a private school for their own child - because they have issues with Sats or with Govt involvement of lesson content or reduction of PE or music etc in the state system. But would still want to teach and teach well within that enviroment.

That is how I read IofS's comments and it made sense to me. You are clearly looking for a barney something more

The key word for me is "INDEPENDENT" education, not priavte which seems to indicate some sort of snobbish attitude.

We seriously considered home ed, but our children are suited to a social atmosphere and I don;t have the personality for home ed.

I don't give a damn what the parents think about me - I'm there to educate their kids, not be judged by them. How would they know where my ds goes to school anyway? I don't discuss my personal life in the classroom.

When you become a teacher, you are judged on your professional competence and your ability to get the little dears through their GCSEs; not on your personal life or your domestic arrangements, which are nobody's business except yours. You do NOT sign up to let the parents of your students know how much you earn; how much your dh earns; where you live; where your child goes to school; how you vote, because it is nothing to do with them at all. This is why most teachers choose to live well away from their work.

When a parent explains to me the ins and outs of a gnats arse about their home life then I might reciprocate. Until then, what I do with my ds is my business as is what I spend my salary on. Perhaps all the teachers of your child could prepare a questionnaire for you Dollius? Why is it anything to do with you anyway? Do you ask the bank clerks where they educate their kids, or your Doctor? If you have to have an op, do you give a damn if the surgeon does private cases as well, or do you wait until someone who takes no private patients has a space on their list for you?

So that he can try and make a difference.

Sats, funding being pulled from music and drama, kids missing out of a free specialist music workshop because the school only cares about literacy and numeracy, children who are clearly not suitable being allowed onto A level courses. GCSE and A level courses being dropped in favour of easier to pass and good for the league tables Btecs.

These are all things that we disagree with and that have happened in the last 12 months to eother dh or one of his colleagues.

Not really.

If that is so, why does he work as a teacher in the state system?

Didn't IofS explain that when she said

"He does not believe in some of the ways that the state dictates we educate our children or how it is resourced."

And, islandofsodor - why are your children independently educated if your DH believes so strongly in the education he provides for other people' children?

Ooh, I knew that would get jumped on.

Doesn't it interest you to know how some parents of the children you teach may feel about you, though?

"It's none of your business how teachers educate their kids as long as they are educating yours with the requisite degree of competence and enthusiasm."

I just don't buy this, sorry.

I too find that comment offensive. Dh teaches in state secondary schools, our children are independantly educated.

He believes in the kids that he teaches and his teaching and in most cases the ability of his colleagues.

He does not believe in some of the ways that the state dictates we educate our children or how it is resourced.

Dollius - the only way I could do my job in a state school was to send ds to a prep as there was cover from 0750 til I picked him up at 1900. It also provided continuity of education as dh is Armed Forces and ds could board if necessary if we got moved quickly.

Having been state educated from the ground up, then yes, I believe that all children deserve a good education, and did my best to provide that. However, teachers do not disappear into a cupboard at the end of the day - they also have school runs and kids and domestics to sort - and for me, prep school for ds took much of the hassle out of my day.

It's none of your business how teachers educate their kids as long as they are educating yours with the requisite degree of competence and enthusiasm. I would argue that all teachers have invested in the state system through their taxes; and more often than not by the amount we have to spend to equip our classrooms and ourselves.

I know Huff smile

I just had the other end of this . When I chose to send DD to a private school I fell out with at least one friend who chose to believe that because I sent DD to a different school then therefore I must be looking down my nose at her choice.

As it was I very seriously considered two ofthe local schools for DD but was swayed by single sex option and proximity to home ( plus other stuff I won't bore you with grin

)

But everything I said was twisted. It was exhausting and depressing. I was asked about start time for example. I explained when DD started and that it helped me as I had to drop her and then get home in time to put DS2 on his taxi. I then got asked why I thought cramming my DD was a good idea. I said it wasn't cramming - they have group time in class and assembly - that then meant I was accusing her school of ignoring pastoral care.
I know that she then told a friend that I thought her school had too short a day and had no social/community time.
Funnily enough I joked with her about DD having to take a torch out to look atthe stars as being 'homework'. She then said I was suggesting that her DD wasn't being pushed hard enough because she didn't get homework hmm

and [sigh]

And all the time I thought her school was great .

Thats all I am concerned about - that she isn't criticising but is being misinterpreted.

But it sounds as though you are perfectly capeable of raising it and clearing it up in a positive friendly way smile

Hope the chat goes well.

Q: Why is she a TA and plannng to train to be a teacher?

A: She plans to get a job in a private school so she can send her kids there and get a fee reduction when they are older.

This is not the case in my experience of people in this situation. I know of two people in this situation - currently TA and planning to be a teacher. Why are they doing it? Because they want to teach, not because they want a reducation in fees hmm

besides that plan would backfire big style for most people surely? There are far less jobs available in private schools than in state schools, never mind idolating it to just one or two private schools.

Actually dollious I do find that view point quite offensive. Just because I chose to use the private system for my DD - for a variety of reasons actually - does not mean that I am not committed to the education and well being of the children in my class (currently TA but was a teacher).

I am sorry if you feel that your children would not benefit from my being in their class. Fortunately the parents of the children I have are not prejudiced against me and prefer to judge me on my actual commmittment within the classroom and the work I actually do with their children, including out of school hours.

And I am sorry that you feel that you now understand why local kids feel ok to jeer at children from private schools. Again, I hope that most children know not to do that, that to judge children just because of where they go to school is just as unfair as to judge people on other equally unjestified basis. hmm

Ask yourselves this question.

Q: Why is she a TA and plannng to train to be a teacher?

A: She plans to get a job in a private school so she can send her kids there and get a fee reduction when they are older.

Happens all the time in our area. Amazing how many of the teachers have their kids in our school and plainly only took the job for the fee reduction.

She should not be saying what she is saying though. If she does not like state schools don't work there.

She is probably right about the fast pace of the private school - some go at an insane pace and are 2 years ahead of state schools by Year 4 and 3 years ahead by Year 6. Its what they do - but it is not somethng to be proud of or desirable. We moved our kids out of a private school that went at an insane high presure pace to move them to a private school where the kids have a life.

Controversy alert! I apologise in advance to anyone offended by what I am about to say.

I think I would have an issue with my son being taught by someone who uses private schools for their own children.

I would want him to be educated by people who really believe in the state system, frankly. Someone who doesn't think it is good enough for their own children has not really invested in the state system, imo.

Those kids who do not have the advantages of rich parents with access to private tuition really need people in their corner who are dedicated to making the state system work for everyone.

I was educated privately myself and travelled across London to get to school every day. We used to get jeered at by the local kids when we got the train home and shouted at for being "stuck up".

I really understand where those kids were coming from now.

Hmmm, am definitely not going to go to the head with it, but I'm afraid I am still contemplating having a quiet and hopefully low-key word with her.
Or maybe just chill. Oh god, I don't know. Am feeling better about it though and putting message on here has helped me relax about it. A little bit. I am realising that I'm as guilty of gossip and prejudice as she might possibly be, so am in no position to judge.

I like the fact that mine mix with all social backgrounds. I would let it wash over you. I would also ignore what people say that she said-things can get blown out of proportion. If she were to say it to you directly I would mention it to the Head in passing as in 'I was a bit surprised that Mrs x .....'but I wouldn't make a point of seeking her out.

DH works in very nice private school and we would benefit from vastly reduced fees, but all of our kids go to local state schools. There is so much more to a school than it's SAT's score and we are proud of the fact that DD1 is confident enough to go and catch a bus with her mates in the morning and negotiate her way through a campus with 1800 other kids.

They mix with people from all social backgrounds and have huge amounts of fun. Whenever we visit DH's school (for concerts etc) DD1 always feels sorry for the kids there!!

I would just chill out TBH, school is just one little aspect of their lives.

Pagwatch, I think everyone concerned is probably looking to have their prejudices reinforced, myself included, but equally those that are telling me that it's been said that the level of work at my son's school is low (allegedly!).
You are right about gossip, I shouldn't listen to it. Unfortunately though, the reputations of schools seem to be entirely based on gossip, unfounded or not, and this sort of chat does a very good and constantly improving school no favours.

I think that this is a whole bundle of nothing.

You have no idea what this woman has really been saying to anyone. And even if she is being quoted you have no idea of the context. She could say
" I like the pre-prep because my son is a bit dim and needs smaller classes" and someone who is inclined to want to view her as being snotty would repeat that as
" I think my son deserves smaller classes"

I would be wary. With all the references to ultra posho preps it may be that you are looking for this gossip to confirm your prejudices about pre-prep parents.

If she says something to you directly. If not be wary. This may be a lot of vitriolic gossip about a perfectly nice woman

I would say that doing lots of academic work in a pre-reception class is a minus rather than a plus.

Yes it does indeed make then genii, or geniuses! LOL makes me wonder if our school is crap, which would be worrying as it is currently the best school in my town (based on year 6 SATS)

YANBU at all. I also volunteer at a local school where I wouldn't want to send my own dcs (they go to a state school further away) and because of the intake they are very very behind compared to children in other schools, but I would never dream of saying this to anyone - apart from all of MN of course. There should be a confidentiality code for volunteers - ie no gossiping

I have a friend whose dcs go to private school and I have seen the homework they do and it is more advanced than my dcs but that is to be expected with smaller classes. I am just very happy that my own dcs love school and love learning.

If she is doing this she is being unprofessional. She ought not to be talking specifics to other parents regardless of what school they go.

However it is hearsay. There is nothing concrete to complain about.

BTW in my experience she will not have signed a confidentiality agreement. Have been a teacher for 10 years, and now a TA in an infant school - never signed any such agreement.

But in the privacy of her own environment, and without specifics ivolved, she is allowed to voice her own opinion surely. Just like people do here on MN or with their wn friends - we see it from both sides here on MN that is for sure; lots of assumptiond and stereotypes flung around IME.

BTW I am a TA in a state school (was teacher in state school) but my own DD goes to a private school. I do see a big difference in things between the private and state sector. This, however, does not been I rubbish the state sector - not in the slightest infact. But differences do exist, some good and some not so good on both sides.

And Nickname, it also means that the rising 4s at our local private pre-prep are all geniuses! Or should that be genii? Oh god, I knew there was a reason that my ds should be learning Latin.

Thanks

It was probably clear to everyone other than me, sometimes I'm so dense I scare myself

In that case what I said 1st stands, your sons class sound advanced compared to my sons

It's my fault Ineedabetternickname - "pre-reception" is a completely invented term that I thought made things clear but obviously didn't! Basically Mrs X was comparing what my son's reception class were doing to her son's class at local private school, which is year below reception, ie rising 4s.

So pre-reception is nursery? Or Foundation stage 1, or pre-school, which are the 3 names I have heard in my area for what I would call nursery? Sorry, I am so confused!

By pre-reception I mean the year before reception (the private school calls itself a pre-prep, I think, hence me using word "pre"). I think Mrs X has got a point in that some of the children in ds's class come from way behind in that they haven't had any nursery "education" therefore may have trouble holding a pencil and there are others (like my ds) who have pushy, over-educated parents and so are probably at a higher level. I guess the range is much broader in a state school than a private school, though whether this is a good or bad thing is another question.
Ineedabetternickname - exactly! Mrs X seems to be suggesting that being taught to read using phonics and beginning to write is somehow not a high enough standard for a bunch of 5-year-olds. It's insane.
And Wilbur, you're so right that this debate becomes so defensive and polarised. I think that's what annoyed me most was that she seemed to be criticising it for being a state school (ie 30 in a class, mixed ability). It's as if it's not enough for one's child to succeed, others have to be failing. When in reality, I think the community as a whole is best served if everyone's child is getting a decent education.
And as Edam says if she thinks state school so rubbish then don't use it for her references to do teacher-training.
Anyway, I've decided not to make a complaint to either the teacher nor the head as I don't want to waste their time nor do I want Mrs X to get bad references (I suspect that she is well-intentioned but a little bit naive). I am debating whether to have a quiet word with her though, because I feel strongly that I wouldn't want her doing this at another school. Plus it seems more honest than bitching about her to other parents which of course I'm very tempted to do (but am instead venting on mn).

I'm confused, whats pre-reception? My son was a nursery until September, when he started school in reception class (or rising 5s we used to call it). He can write slowly if he copies, and is just about reading words now. His teacher said he is in the 'top half' of the class, he is not yet 5 but by that standard the children in your son's school sound very clever!

Although I would like just a smidge of privilege. Any maybe a little botox round the eyes. grin

Sorry, I misread your line about posho school parents and was talking to joesmummy about the word horrid (although she then retracted that before I had finished my post). I think that everyone wants to think they have made the best choice for their children and unfortunately, there will always be people who trumpet their choices as the only reasonable ones which annoys and belittles other people. If this TA is one of those kind of people, and you do hear these massively unhelpful comments coming out of her mouth, then I would definitely say something to her about it. It's a bit like a friend of mine who occasionally makes comments about the behaviour of some of the children at our local school, conveniently forgetting that her privately educated son is possibly the least disciplined child I know, rofl.

I guess I would just love the world of education debates to be a kinder, gentler place where people accept that every school is going to have its great and not-so-great elements, and that people's choices don't automatically mark them as either a communist who puts their politics before their children or a complete snob so laden down with privilege that they can barely move a botoxed muscle.

Thanks Huff you were right - I was describing the gossipy behaviour as horrid.

Parents can send their kids where they like.

DH went to a private school and he is lovely. And a bit posho too wink

to be fair I didn't describe anyone as horrid and I described the schools as "posho" rather than the parents themselves (tbh some of the very posho-est of parents use the state school, hence the very broad social mix). And I think Joesmummy was describing this sort of gossip and denigration as horrid behaviour, rather than the parents as being horrid for sending their kids to private school per se.
It is a bit of a silly word though, you're right, I was being facetious...

Sorry - pressed send too soon - meant to say - lowers the tone of a reasonable subject for discussion.

If indeed she is rubbishing the local school, then that is unprofessional, unfair and unpleasant. However, using words like "posho" and "horrid" to describe people who send their children to private schools does nothing to further intelligent debate on the subject. This is a regular, knee-jerk reaction on this type of thread, and it polarises families and lowers the tone.

Silly woman (her not you). Clearly insecure - feels she has to defend her own choices by denigrating other children.

You are right, it is unprofessional and a darn cheek! If she thinks state education is so rubbish, how come she's asked a state school to help her gain experience?

Are you sure it's not parents putting words into her mouth? or Chinese whispers? I'd need to have heard her myself to go and complain to the head. Can see why you're annoyed, if it's true!

I have to say if I was spending 12k a year and driving an hour across London to st poshos for reception class, I'd want to believe that local state school wasn't teaching them to read and write. What's really annoying is that it's not true. I'm gobsmacked at how well they're being taught and so proud of ds with his little obsessive sheets of A4 covered in numbers up to a 100 or oddly-spelt sentences.

Ok, maybe not horrid... bit strong. (I'm hot too! wink

)

I think you're right about them wanting reassurance about choices - both posh school parents and us plebs!

Sorry cross posts. I missed your reply to roneef before putting in my 2 cents worth blush

Sounds like your ds's school is lovely. Glad you don't send him to the school with the horrid parents and nannies. They don't sound very nice.

Again Joesmummy, you are being sensible and I am hot under the collar (what with this weather etc). It is kind of pointless for me to pass on third-hand gossip to head, though there really isn't any agenda for the people telling me these pearls of wisdom from mrs x. I think more the agenda is her reassuring them that they're all doing the right thing in sending their kids to private schools. And this is what annoys me because we're all seeking that reassurance that we're doing the right thing and it's obviously a very divisive and sensitive issue.
Must not listen to tittle tattle, must not listen to tittle tattle...

Tred carefully. You say "someone told me" and you've "just heard". You've not witnessed anything yourself. If you repeat this you could be seen to be gossiping (I'm not saying it isn't true and you don't have right to be angry but it's very sensitive, esp as this woman is an employee and has certain employment rights).

The Head can't speak to her on the basis of hearsay. They have to witness something directly or have a signed statement from a direct witness.

If you are really that angry ask the person who heard this woman saying stuff to speak to the head or stop gossiping. Is it possible the people who have been speaking to you have another agenda by having a go about this woman?

Yes, true Roneef, it is all hearsay and gossip but it seems odd that it wouldn't have any basis in truth. Why would people make up stuff that she said?
In some ways I should just let it lie as she is leaving to move to the leafy home counties at end of term so it's not going to achieve anything, I just feel she should be censured in some way in case she goes onto another school and does the same. I sort of feel like if she's saying this about the school to people who know me, has she been discussing ds's work in more detail?

It's not other parents in the class, it's parents/nannies at another school - a pre-prep a street away where 95% of children go onto private schools. But either way, I think you're right, it's unprofessional and unethical. Didn't know whether I was over-reacting.

Hi,

IF she said this stuff you ANBU.

The point is that it's all hearsay.

You can't go to the head with gossip.

Very annoying and unprofessional if true though.

Whatever her views are, she should not be talking to other parents in the class about them.

She is in the school in a professional capacity, even as a volunteer and will have agreed to a confidentiality agreement.

Speak to the Head, he/she will want to know the TA is bad mouthing the school.

Ooo I'm feeling annoyed. In my son's reception class at our local primary school (which is lovely and representative of area, ie very mixed socially) there is a volunteer TA, let's call her Mrs X. She is thinking of becoming a teacher, hence the volunteer work. While this is all very kind of her to help out in the class etc, etc, I feel like telling her to feck off.
Firstly, someone told me that Mrs X had said that the school was good but that "she wouldn't send her son there". I enquired why and it was apparently due to large class sizes and mixed ability. Fairly standard in a state school and this woman has had her son down for various ultra posho schools from the off, so she would say that, I suppose.
Then I've just heard that she's been saying (to posho school parents) that the kids in ds' class are at a really low level and are only doing stuff that the kids in the pre-reception class of posh school are doing. Am annoyed because
a) I'm amazed at how much this bunch five year olds are achieving. My ds can write sentences, read a bit, write down sums etc etc. All thanks to great teaching.
b) This is an area where a lot of rich people live and unfortunately most of them drive their kids across London rather than supporting their local school and this sort of talk only encourages it.
c) Feel it's rather indiscreet and breaking some sort of code to talk about my ds's class to people who know him. Or to anyone in fact.
Am I being unreasonable? Should I just chill and accept that lots of people think state schools are sink schools on account of their big class sizes and children who haven't been taught to read Tolkein before reception? Or should I mention it to the very approachable head?
Ooo am so furious...

Mumsnet Talk

Mumsnet latest

Mumsnet TV

Useful tools

Tip of the day

Quote of the week

Recipe of the week

Follow mumsnet on...

Mumsnet Talk

AIBU to expect the private-school-using TA at ds's primary school not to slag it off?