I apologise for the offence my remarks caused. I assure readers that it was not deliberate. Bitter irony for me was that as I made my remarks to Estelle Morris at the seminar I had within the same breath praised the work of classroom assistants.
I said they were working well helping to raise standards. But due to their developing roles, they were unable to contribute much to reducing teachers’ excessive workload. I stated the NASUWT was willing to examine fundamentally the roles of teachers and assistants. But if the Government wished to extend the roles of support staff it was no cheap option. To succeed you required appropriately qualified and trained personnel, it was no good recruiting “pig-ignorant peasants”.
The TES said I “appeared to equate” the two. To whom, The TES subsequently asked, was I referring if not to classroom assistants? The answer is simple. I was referring to no one. I was just warning about the future.
The TES sought clarification of my words two days after the event. With the meaning I had intended I saw no problem with The TES reporting my observations although the subsequent coverage juxtaposed my comment alongside different material.
I feel aggrieved that The TES never asked me the straight question: Had I intended to equate the two? I would have emphatically answered: No way.
I am distraught that anyone should even think I might equate classroom assistants with “peasants”. I know the good work they do. Many have good qualifications. Some are qualified teachers. Surely the context in which I introduced the admittedly unfortunate phrase would rule out the interpretation The TES placed upon it.
It is surely of some significance that neither Estelle Morris herself nor any of the educational journalists who were present placed that interpretation upon my comments.
Nigel de Gruchy
