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...

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!

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 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)

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.

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.

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".

'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.

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).

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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

{Puts on tin helmet}

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

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.)

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.

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.

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 .

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.

"...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?

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."

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.

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

"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.