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...

"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.

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.

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).

eerm "delighted" can spell, can't type

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.

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.

' 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!

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.

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.

'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!

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.

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.

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.

oh dear - grammar school.

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

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.

"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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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%.

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!