That's what we love...sweeping generalisations maligning a complete profession. If possible, could you please provide evidence to support your statement? I'd be very interested to see it.
Perhaps at the same time you could provide evidence to show that police are all corrupt, the unemployed are all lazy and that all parents are complete idiots????
Or maybe, just maybe, in future not make such ridiculous generalisations?
This is Digital Spy and I'll thank you not to ask me to support my sweeping generalisations with any evidence.
Well no... as we both know it was those with the "best attendance" and a fudging of percentages. I'm completely dubious about how many manged a real 100% because so many things can go wrong (like parents dropping dead... tut... during term time) so it's a "lottery" after that. One day due to a dead parent is taking the piss.
One day due to any reason outside of the child's control is taking the piss, hence why these attendance rewards should be scrapped all-together.
From reading the story the headmaster has decided not do this again. I assume because he has realised that it makes him look a bit of a c@nt. He really didn't think it through.
Attendance does have a "luck" element, but it also has a significant "determination" element. We all know there are days when you may not be dreadfully ill, but you feel a bit under the weather. Some people, under those circumstances, get up and go in to work. Some people phone in sick.
Clearly, the death of a parent is not within your control. That I accept.
If I had been this father I would have said to my daughter "there will be many times in life where things feel unfair, and sometimes they actually will be. There will also be times when you will have to forego something because of a greater good, even though you don't want to. But being able to brush off disappointment and hold your head up with pride is often the best course. This is one small thing on one small day. Tomorrow it will all be forgotten about."
If I had been this father I would have said to my daughter "there will be many times in life where things feel unfair, and sometimes they actually will be. There will also be times when you will have to forego something because of a greater good, even though you don't want to. But being able to brush off disappointment and hold your head up with pride is often the best course. This is one small thing on one small day. Tomorrow it will all be forgotten about."
She is a child who had lost her mother , why she was penalised for this is beyond me . She did not take a day off for the sake of it and a better headmaster would of shown some compassion .
They easily can, as they take their cues from the adults around them.
Ever seen a good parent with a child who falls over? Having quickly ascertained that there is no serious injury they casually comfort the child, have a good chuckle, and encourage the child to do the same.
A bad parent looks panic-stricken, scoops the child off the floor and causes a scene, making the child distressed and causing it to cry.
This father has fallen into the latter category.
I'll have to yield to your obvious experience in these matters.
You can achieve 100% attendance largely down to good fortune.
I'm tempted to go the Inigo Montoya route with this word 'achieve'. If something is good fortune, then you didn't achieve it, the two are mutually exclusive. I didn't achieve waking up without novo virus this morning any more than I achieved being born without a disability.
It's the only profession I know of where the person goes from school to college and back to school again without ever gaining any life experience. This is the result. For goodness sake, these people are responsible for the education of our children. Can we please have some common sense.
Lawyers? Doctors? Vets? Pretty well all the traditional professions, in other words.
Although unlike you, I have direct experience of this profession. On my PGCE course, out of about 100 of us, maybe only half a dozen came straight from their first degree. I was 28 - as were several of my friends. There were older students, too.
When I had student teachers in my own classroom - usually they were mature students.
I later was involved in training intending teachers abroad and same thing again - the vast majority of our student teachers were mature students.
As for this - it sounds like an inflexible Head teacher. Sadly they are not uncommon. If I had been that child's class teacher I'd have said nothing, and made sure she'd gone. If the Head had refused, I'd have refused to go too.
Poor little thing only had the day of the funeral off. She sounds like a lovely little girl and a credit to her dad (and late mum). The Head teacher? I hope they're ashamed. Although the reality is, they are probably thrilled that they have got some attention. It's also my experience that most Head teachers are d1cks.
If I had been this father I would have said to my daughter "there will be many times in life where things feel unfair, and sometimes they actually will be. There will also be times when you will have to forego something because of a greater good, even though you don't want to. But being able to brush off disappointment and hold your head up with pride is often the best course. This is one small thing on one small day. Tomorrow it will all be forgotten about."
Are you talking about how the child should deal with the death of her mother or not being able to go on the school trip?
I don't think kids with 100% attendance should be rewarded as it will just encourage parents to send in their kids when they are ill and spread their disease around.
I remember when i was in year 5 during the winter term one mum who always sent her daughter in overstepped the mark. The girl was clearly ill and shouldnt have been in. The teacher moved her away from the radiator because she thought the radiator was circulating the germs from the girl to the rest of the class!
She was visibly ill all morning and eventually got moved to the staff room to study so she wasnt around the other children and her mum was only contacted when she actually vomitted in the afternoon. The school were so concerned about her having good attendance that they hadnt considered how many of the class were exposed to her bug that day.
My personal opinion is if a child has a day off sick, or has a funeral or a doctors appointment, they should be offered catch up work to do at home which should then eliminate the absence. Ok you could say most kids would stay at home, and i dont mean it should be used that way but if a child hasnt had a single day off and then they are ill they shouldnt feel like they are being punished for something thats out of their control.
When we are talking about primary school kids its really out of their control if they attend school or not. There was a girl in my class who often turned up in her pyjamas because she had refused to get dressed for school so her mum just dropped her off and she soon got changed before the first class! Likewise if a child is ill but wants to go to school often their parents will say no. It seems hard to reward/punish them when they have no say.
I remember when i was in year 5 during the winter term one mum who always sent her daughter in overstepped the mark. The girl was clearly ill and shouldnt have been in. The teacher moved her away from the radiator because she thought the radiator was circulating the germs from the girl to the rest of the class!
She was visibly ill all morning and eventually got moved to the staff room to study so she wasnt around the other children and her mum was only contacted when she actually vomitted in the afternoon. The school were so concerned about her having good attendance that they hadnt considered how many of the class were exposed to her bug that day.
My personal opinion is if a child has a day off sick, or has a funeral or a doctors appointment, they should be offered catch up work to do at home which should then eliminate the absence. Ok you could say most kids would stay at home, and i dont mean it should be used that way but if a child hasnt had a single day off and then they are ill they shouldnt feel like they are being punished for something thats out of their control.
When we are talking about primary school kids its really out of their control if they attend school or not. There was a girl in my class who often turned up in her pyjamas because she had refused to get dressed for school so her mum just dropped her off and she soon got changed before the first class! Likewise if a child is ill but wants to go to school often their parents will say no. It seems hard to reward/punish them when they have no say.
Yes but then teachers would have to make decisions and consider the differences of different situations, and apparently that way lies anarchy.
My experience with targets of 95% being ridiculously inflexible:
My 7yr old son's attendance was poor in the last school year. He has a diagnosis of being lactose intolerant and will often get an upset stomach through this. The diagnosis is funny though, there's no concrete test and it just comes through observations and common sense with the GP.
Consequently, I'd call school in the morning if we were struggling and be told again and again that he had to stay home for 48 hours. Frustratingly, because the kitchens are a contracted in company, they work on different rules and refused to take into consideration a lactose problem. The GP diagnosis wasn't enough for them. I also didn't pay for him to be on the 'milk list' for obvious reasons but it was standard for them to hand out spare milk drinks to kids without, something I only discovered later on.
Eventually welfare became involved and it was agreed that in the case of an upset stomach over lactose intolerance he did not have to stay home 48 hours each time as I argued that there was no bug to pass around. However, they would not accept lateness and a late morning was marked as absent. So, if he was stuck on the loo one morning, it was an unauthorised absence, no argument.
All was going well, school were actually being careful about what he was fed. He then had a small filling that went territory wrong and caused a massive, painful abscess on his gum. Of course, he was poorly, he had several dental appointments to fix him and was booked in for an operation because of the severity of the abscess.
During that time I received notice that I would be fined if he had any further time off, all absences from then on would be classed as unauthorised. He was still at this point waiting for his op and so there was no way with that coming he would reach 100% for the rest of the year. I checked into the legality of it and a head does not have to authorise any absence, I was over a barrel.
I now home educate, he rarely has an upset tummy and his mouth is fine. He has not been poorly in months but I refuse to send him back to school until I can be absolutely certain he can reach the 95% attendance they insist on. I'm not even sure that's even possible.
It's an absolute mess, targets have become 'law' and the kids needs are being left behind. It would be wonderful if all kids were well all the time and if all kids never had shit happen, but that's not how it is. Punishments for 'shit happens' serves nobody well.
^Surely you'd have a great case to challenge any fines though?
I looked into it and apparently not. It seems that different councils deal with it in different ways. Here the council interprets the target as black and white.
It was ridiculously frustrating though as with his lactose problems, then exasperated by his abscess his immune system was screwed. You of course then get other parents scared of the fines sending ill kids to school and he'd pick up everything. It was farcical.
I looked into it and apparently not. It seems that different councils deal with it in different ways. Here the council interprets the target as black and white.
It was ridiculously frustrating though as with his lactose problems, then exasperated by his abscess his immune system was screwed. You of course then get other parents scared of the fines sending ill kids to school and he'd pick up everything. It was farcical.
it's disgusting these targets in schools.
Kids have the right to had days off if we hey are I'll.
In work you have the right to have sick days without been punished for it.
Same should be for school kids.
it's disgusting these targets in schools.
Kids have the right to had days off if we hey are I'll.
In work you have the right to have sick days without been punished for it.
Same should be for school kids.
I understand that 'some' parents simply can't be arsed to get the kids to school but it felt that I was being tarred with the same brush. It really felt that they thought I was simply too lazy to bother to get him in. They would insist that he attended regardless of how ill he was. It is absolutely black and white thinking. If he has an upset stomach, he can attend with a change of clothes and crap himself in the classroom - seriously - that is what they wanted.
Fortunately, the home schooling is going well. I have had teacher training and have home educated in the past so I'm lucky to have a way out of the stupidity of the situation, but there are plenty who aren't and kids are being forced to attend school regardless of their health or home circumstances. The stress it created was mental.
Targets are more important than the kids and more real than life for school management these days and it serves nobody and improves nothing.
Bringing it back to topic though, I know that if a kid in his class had lost out on a treat through losing their parent I'd certainly not try to 'trump' them by claiming that my son was ill and couldn't help it. I'd want everything done to keep that little girl smiling.
That’s not necessarily always a good thing, though. A kid with a stinking cold might be determined to go in to get the reward, be in no state to actually learn a thing but make the entire rest of the class ill too. In such circumstances their ‘determination’ would be rather counterproductive… and that in general is the problem with any sort of catch-all rule (especially if applied with complete inflexibility, as would appear to be the situation here)
On the contrary, their determination would be a cunning plan - make sure they are still themselves on course for the reward and sabotage the competition at the same time. It's a win win situation.
Which might be relevant if it were a competition against the other kids, rather than against a fixed numerical target...
Based on some of the comments in this thread, it is both - you need to get 100% to get entered in a ballot so the fewer kids in the ballot the better your chance of winning the reward.
I looked into it and apparently not. It seems that different councils deal with it in different ways. Here the council interprets the target as black and white.
It was ridiculously frustrating though as with his lactose problems, then exasperated by his abscess his immune system was screwed. You of course then get other parents scared of the fines sending ill kids to school and he'd pick up everything. It was farcical.
It would be at times like this that you would need to enlist the help of your local councillor or MP...or failing that the Press or, if necessary, the ECHR.
Comments
This is Digital Spy and I'll thank you not to ask me to support my sweeping generalisations with any evidence.
I take it you are a teacher?
One day due to any reason outside of the child's control is taking the piss, hence why these attendance rewards should be scrapped all-together.
Are you still arguing the toss on this one?
Give it up ;-)
Clearly, the death of a parent is not within your control. That I accept.
She is a child who had lost her mother , why she was penalised for this is beyond me . She did not take a day off for the sake of it and a better headmaster would of shown some compassion .
I'll have to yield to your obvious experience in these matters.
I'm tempted to go the Inigo Montoya route with this word 'achieve'. If something is good fortune, then you didn't achieve it, the two are mutually exclusive. I didn't achieve waking up without novo virus this morning any more than I achieved being born without a disability.
Lawyers? Doctors? Vets? Pretty well all the traditional professions, in other words.
Although unlike you, I have direct experience of this profession. On my PGCE course, out of about 100 of us, maybe only half a dozen came straight from their first degree. I was 28 - as were several of my friends. There were older students, too.
When I had student teachers in my own classroom - usually they were mature students.
I later was involved in training intending teachers abroad and same thing again - the vast majority of our student teachers were mature students.
As for this - it sounds like an inflexible Head teacher. Sadly they are not uncommon. If I had been that child's class teacher I'd have said nothing, and made sure she'd gone. If the Head had refused, I'd have refused to go too.
Poor little thing only had the day of the funeral off. She sounds like a lovely little girl and a credit to her dad (and late mum). The Head teacher? I hope they're ashamed. Although the reality is, they are probably thrilled that they have got some attention. It's also my experience that most Head teachers are d1cks.
Are you talking about how the child should deal with the death of her mother or not being able to go on the school trip?
I remember when i was in year 5 during the winter term one mum who always sent her daughter in overstepped the mark. The girl was clearly ill and shouldnt have been in. The teacher moved her away from the radiator because she thought the radiator was circulating the germs from the girl to the rest of the class!
She was visibly ill all morning and eventually got moved to the staff room to study so she wasnt around the other children and her mum was only contacted when she actually vomitted in the afternoon. The school were so concerned about her having good attendance that they hadnt considered how many of the class were exposed to her bug that day.
My personal opinion is if a child has a day off sick, or has a funeral or a doctors appointment, they should be offered catch up work to do at home which should then eliminate the absence. Ok you could say most kids would stay at home, and i dont mean it should be used that way but if a child hasnt had a single day off and then they are ill they shouldnt feel like they are being punished for something thats out of their control.
When we are talking about primary school kids its really out of their control if they attend school or not. There was a girl in my class who often turned up in her pyjamas because she had refused to get dressed for school so her mum just dropped her off and she soon got changed before the first class! Likewise if a child is ill but wants to go to school often their parents will say no. It seems hard to reward/punish them when they have no say.
My 7yr old son's attendance was poor in the last school year. He has a diagnosis of being lactose intolerant and will often get an upset stomach through this. The diagnosis is funny though, there's no concrete test and it just comes through observations and common sense with the GP.
Consequently, I'd call school in the morning if we were struggling and be told again and again that he had to stay home for 48 hours. Frustratingly, because the kitchens are a contracted in company, they work on different rules and refused to take into consideration a lactose problem. The GP diagnosis wasn't enough for them. I also didn't pay for him to be on the 'milk list' for obvious reasons but it was standard for them to hand out spare milk drinks to kids without, something I only discovered later on.
Eventually welfare became involved and it was agreed that in the case of an upset stomach over lactose intolerance he did not have to stay home 48 hours each time as I argued that there was no bug to pass around. However, they would not accept lateness and a late morning was marked as absent. So, if he was stuck on the loo one morning, it was an unauthorised absence, no argument.
All was going well, school were actually being careful about what he was fed. He then had a small filling that went territory wrong and caused a massive, painful abscess on his gum. Of course, he was poorly, he had several dental appointments to fix him and was booked in for an operation because of the severity of the abscess.
During that time I received notice that I would be fined if he had any further time off, all absences from then on would be classed as unauthorised. He was still at this point waiting for his op and so there was no way with that coming he would reach 100% for the rest of the year. I checked into the legality of it and a head does not have to authorise any absence, I was over a barrel.
I now home educate, he rarely has an upset tummy and his mouth is fine. He has not been poorly in months but I refuse to send him back to school until I can be absolutely certain he can reach the 95% attendance they insist on. I'm not even sure that's even possible.
It's an absolute mess, targets have become 'law' and the kids needs are being left behind. It would be wonderful if all kids were well all the time and if all kids never had shit happen, but that's not how it is. Punishments for 'shit happens' serves nobody well.
I looked into it and apparently not. It seems that different councils deal with it in different ways. Here the council interprets the target as black and white.
It was ridiculously frustrating though as with his lactose problems, then exasperated by his abscess his immune system was screwed. You of course then get other parents scared of the fines sending ill kids to school and he'd pick up everything. It was farcical.
it's disgusting these targets in schools.
Kids have the right to had days off if we hey are I'll.
In work you have the right to have sick days without been punished for it.
Same should be for school kids.
I understand that 'some' parents simply can't be arsed to get the kids to school but it felt that I was being tarred with the same brush. It really felt that they thought I was simply too lazy to bother to get him in. They would insist that he attended regardless of how ill he was. It is absolutely black and white thinking. If he has an upset stomach, he can attend with a change of clothes and crap himself in the classroom - seriously - that is what they wanted.
Fortunately, the home schooling is going well. I have had teacher training and have home educated in the past so I'm lucky to have a way out of the stupidity of the situation, but there are plenty who aren't and kids are being forced to attend school regardless of their health or home circumstances. The stress it created was mental.
Targets are more important than the kids and more real than life for school management these days and it serves nobody and improves nothing.
Bringing it back to topic though, I know that if a kid in his class had lost out on a treat through losing their parent I'd certainly not try to 'trump' them by claiming that my son was ill and couldn't help it. I'd want everything done to keep that little girl smiling.
On the contrary, their determination would be a cunning plan - make sure they are still themselves on course for the reward and sabotage the competition at the same time. It's a win win situation.
You lose pay if you have to much time off sick. That's a kind of punishment isn't it?
Based on some of the comments in this thread, it is both - you need to get 100% to get entered in a ballot so the fewer kids in the ballot the better your chance of winning the reward.
It would be at times like this that you would need to enlist the help of your local councillor or MP...or failing that the Press or, if necessary, the ECHR.
Not really, because you are reverting to the default status of nothing for nothing. No work, no pay. You aren't being penalised in any way.