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

[Huffthemagicdragon]

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...

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

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.

"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...

'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.

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 !

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

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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'

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...

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.

'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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.