Agreements between Parents and Schools

[Gmart]

Why should I give justification for something which already exists? They exist, we have to deal with them, unless we all decide to bury our heads in sand???

About as much use as still going on about how we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. Useless now.

If we stated what the rights of both parties are, then we might get on.

The parents have the right to choose the education for their child. Schools have the right to choose what children are acceptable? Reserving the right to refuse to teach those children who show no application?

 

[toggle]

Why should I give justification for something which already exists? They exist, we have to deal with them, unless we all decide to bury our heads in sand???

You are talking about changing the system to allow a contract under which a child can be removed form the school. That is a change in the existing system that I feel is unjustifiable and as a major change is worthy of debate in and of itself. Denying that it is a change is useless.

Schools have the right to choose what children are acceptable?

at the moment, their grounds on which to decide on what children are not acceptable are very limited.

Reserving the right to refuse to teach those children who show no application?

The problem with that is that there are schools that will not consider themselves limited to removing severely disruptive pupils. They will consider it a chance to make false allegations against parents that don't produce children that don't need extra help, that don't fit their idea of what perfect pupil should be. allowing schools to deny access to kids on the basis of a contract whose terms can be applied subjectively is very open to abuse. i see no place where you have suggested how children's right to an education could be protected from such abuses.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

Why should I give justification for something which already exists? They exist, we have to deal with them, unless we all decide to bury our heads in sand???

About as much use as still going on about how we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. Useless now.

If we stated what the rights of both parties are, then we might get on.

The parents have the right to choose the education for their child. Schools have the right to choose what children are acceptable? Reserving the right to refuse to teach those children who show no application?

You always do this, moot some proposal, refuse to justify or back anything youve proposed other than to say something like you have above ( and of course you take the position that your opinion is the correct one) and expect people to justify their arguments while you tell them they are wrong.
Its pointless debating with you

 

[oryx]

We seem to have contracts for everything - e.g schools/parents, acceptable behaviour contracts, proposed contracts for new social housing tenants to look for work, etc.

It's real 'nanny statism' IMHO. Treating people like children in that they have to have the basics spelt out to them.

Soon, you'll go in to the pub, go to the bar, ask for a beer and have to sign a contract, something like:

'I, the undersigned, understand that the alcohol I am about to purchase is an intoxicating substance.

I also understand that the consumption of alcohol can lead to health problems, including addiction.

I will not take part in the over-consumption of alcohol while on these premises, and will moderate my intake.

In return, I understand that the landlord, Corporate Green Taverns plc, will provide me with standing room, gassy mass-produced lager and a small silver salver on which to place my change.

Signed................................'

 

[Gmart]

Toggle stated that the evil school was denying his/her child its education, so I am NOT talking about a change, this is how it is now. It shouldn't happen, but the problem is that the schools are trying to ensure their funding thru the system given, and so maybe that system should change...

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

what are you arguing then? You dont seem to know yourself... At the beginning of this thread you didnt know they existed and seemed to be suggesting they should be in place to allow schools to exclude those who are deemed dirty or inattentive....

 

[toggle]

Toggle stated that the evil school was denying his/her child its education, so I am NOT talking about a change, this is how it is now. It shouldn't happen, but the problem is that the schools are trying to ensure their funding thru the system given, and so maybe that system should change...

You may want to go back to school yourself and learn to read properly. i have not called the school evil, nor have I said they are denying my child an education.

Now, perhaps you would like to respond to what I've actually said.

 

[Gmart]

I thought that when you said:

My point is that I've had direct experience of a school making false claim about neglect of my child because they thought our faces didn't fit.

You were implying that the school was threatening to withdraw education because your faces didn't fit.

Seeing as you now claim they weren't, then I don't see the relevancy.

Another thread set up to explore possible ways forward, but derailed by those who have no interest in starting their own threads for their own issues.

You don't want contracts, and so decide to stop a discussion about what should
be on one. Useful!

 

[toggle]

I thought that when you said:



You were implying that the school was threatening to withdraw education because your faces didn't fit.

No I wasn't. i was supplying a personal example of schools who make false allegations and saying that was a reason why a contract that would allow children to be refused an education at that school was a bad idea. At no point did I say that the school denied my child an education on these grounds because I know that they cannot do so under current law, something you are suggesting we should change.


Your first comment in the Op was questioning whether a contract should exist,

Why as that question if all you want to do is discuss what should be in a contract rather than including debate about whether a contract should exist....

 

[Cloo]

Solution, do nothing?

Well, it's as good as nothing. I can't imagine a situation where it would actually change anyone's behaviour. Don't have time to write now, but there may be more effective approaches.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

I thought that when you said:



You were implying that the school was threatening to withdraw education because your faces didn't fit.

Seeing as you now claim they weren't, then I don't see the relevancy.

Another thread set up to explore possible ways forward, but derailed by those who have no interest in starting their own threads for their own issues.

You don't want contracts, and so decide to stop a discussion about what should
be on one. Useful!

another thread to discuss 'ways forward'?? Why are they needed?
On what basis do you start these threads?If youve already decided you are right and everyone else is incorrect or has nothing to add?
You asked in your OP should they exist ? Would contracts be a way forward to address behaviour of children who are dirty or who dont sit still.

People contribute based upon experience which inform their responses. Call them 'issues' if you wish.
I personally think both Toggle and I are illustrating very well what happens if a head teacher decides that a certain families face doesnt fit ( or whatever- as you say, dirty or late etc) and its a very sound argument against having contracts allowing schools to withdraw education on the basis of 'breach of contract'

Because schools already abuse their powers... FACT

interesting to note you seemingly didnt know they already existed until I told you schools already have them

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

Denying education to those who don't want it? What happened to parents rights? If they don't want to ensure their child behaves, then that is their choice and education can switch to home-schooling?

Parents have responsibility for their childs education. If they choose to delegate that to a school then they are agreeing to send their child on given days and times and to follow the rules of a sdchool already.
Home education should be a choice, not a default mechanism in order to allow state schools to refuse to educate children they view as undesireable.
In the UK every child has the right to a free, state funded, full time education.A contract which the school deems as 'broken' doesnt remove that right, neither does it infer any power on Local authorities to refuse to educate a child because 'parents can always home educate'

In fact the opposite is true. Local authorities have a duty to educate a child( in a school or by providing tuition) unless they are satisfied that the parents are providing an effective education at school or otherwise

 

[Gmart]

OK, so since you two want to discuss whether such contracts should exist, please feel free to converse.

Meanwhile I will wait for you to work out that we've got them now matter what you say, and then I will join in to discuss what should be in them, and what shouldn't.

Have fun...

 

[toggle]

OK, so since you two want to discuss whether such contracts should exist, please feel free to converse.

Meanwhile I will wait for you to work out that we've got them now matter what you say, and then I will join in to discuss what should be in them, and what shouldn't.

Have fun...

WE DO NOT HAVE CONTRACTS THAT ARE WORTH THE PAPER THEY ARE WRITTEN ON.THEY ARE NOT LEGALLY BINDING AND CANNOT BE USED TO DENY A CHILD AN EDUCATION

This is very, different from your suggestion that there should be an agreement that if not followed, could result in a child being denied a state education. This would allow a system that would be open to abuse leading to children being removed from schools because they needed more effort to educate or had below average grades.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

OK, so since you two want to discuss whether such contracts should exist, please feel free to converse.

Meanwhile I will wait for you to work out that we've got them now matter what you say, and then I will join in to discuss what should be in them, and what shouldn't.

Have fun...

and in english?

For a teacher your post construction and reading comprehension skills are truly shocking. You dont even appear to know what it is you posted in the first post on this thread.

 

[toggle]

He's a teacher?

Actually, I should have guessed. The complete inability to comprehend a different position to their own and selective reading ability is so similar to what I encountered when trying to get an explanation of the allegations the school were making. I should have guessed he's singing from the same hymn-book

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

He claims he is... he uses that to discuss education and seems to think it means he is some sort of expert on everything from dyslexia to dirty children.
personally I think, if he is a teacher he'd fit well in a droid school where all the pupils have a pre programmed set of behaviours and intelligences..

but if course then he'd be obsolete.
I feel very sorry for his pupils, posters here before have said he should be reported for some of his views on various aspects of pupils behaviour/achievement/underachievement
he also wont have schools held accountable for anything.... responsibility for everything rests with the children and their parents. He and his fellow teachers are performing admirably at all levels and in all situations of course and shouldnt have to even contmplate the possibility that they could be responsible for problems, anywhere in schools
which is why he dismisses anything negative about schools on this thread as people atempting to derail it.
take a look at his other threads. he does it all the time

 

[ViolentPanda]

You always do this, moot some proposal, refuse to justify or back anything youve proposed other than to say something like you have above ( and of course you take the position that your opinion is the correct one) and expect people to justify their arguments while you tell them they are wrong.
Its pointless debating with you

You've noticed the Marthews modus operandi too, I see.

 

[ViolentPanda]

He claims he is... he uses that to discuss education and seems to think it means he is some sort of expert on everything from dyslexia to dirty children.
personally I think, if he is a teacher he'd fit well in a droid school where all the pupils have a pre programmed set of behaviours and intelligences..

or an independent for the scions of the privileged.

 

[Funky_monks]

Surely if every child has the right to an education, then these contracts are worthless.

If teachers can't manage pupils who are different or slightly grubby, then they shouldn't be teaching.

(*newsflash*: Kids like to roll in the mud, I know I did)

The problem is, imo, that the shortage of teachers, coupled with incentives has caused a massive influx of the barely capable into schools.

I was a school caretaker for a year and had conversations with teachers whose academic capabilities were (on the surface at least) flabbergastingly poor.

I can see me becoming a right pain in the arse when I have kids of school age.

 

[butterfly child]

what are you arguing then? You dont seem to know yourself... At the beginning of this thread you didnt know they existed and seemed to be suggesting they should be in place to allow schools to exclude those who are deemed dirty or inattentive....

I didn't read it like that at all, I read it to mean how can schools ensure parents are looking after their kids to the extend that they are clean and well fed.

Nowhere did the OP suggest the schools should use failure of these basic needs as an excuse to exclude them!

 

[toggle]

I didn't read it like that at all, I read it to mean how can schools ensure parents are looking after their kids to the extend that they are clean and well fed.

Nowhere did the OP suggest the schools should use failure of these basic needs as an excuse to exclude them!

So you didn't notice the mention of home schooling as the option for parents who are seen as not following the contracts?

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

I didn't read it like that at all, I read it to mean how can schools ensure parents are looking after their kids to the extend that they are clean and well fed.

Nowhere did the OP suggest the schools should use failure of these basic needs as an excuse to exclude them!

Like toggle said youve not read the thread properly have you? He explicitly says parents have the 'option' to home school their children if they dont keep to these contracts.

So head decides contract isnt being kept to( an arbitary process) then says" you have the option to home school, your child is no longer my concern...
Id say thats pretty explicit as an intent to exclude any child who doesnt fit GMarthews bidea of 'behaving' note he included 'scratching' as an example of forbidden behaviour and 'uncleanliness... show me a school which has no children who scratches... even those who are squeeky clean get head lice ( I guess that would be an example of filthy under his contracts too!)

And of course, there is never any acknowledgement that schools and teachers are anything other than perfect and virtuous.. if the parents have to take the 'option' to home school then that, in Gmarthews mind isnt his/the schools concern should these contracts be 'broken'

 

[toggle]

LMHF and I have both had experience of spurious complaints being made against us and our children because they need a bit more attention than average. IIRC, we were also both younger than the average mother at the school and in social housing as well. Seen as an easy victim, someone that could be picked on and didn't have the knowledge or ability to fight back. When I sought to address the accusation that my child was being sent to school in dirty clothing, I was refused access to the person who had recorded the accusation and was told that I had to go through the health visitor service, an group that would not be having any dealings with my child after they had started school.

There is a culture in some schools, of 'first apportion blame' rather than seeking to address the needs of an individual child. To make accusations and seek to prevent parents from being able to address these complaints through lying about how complaints should be addressed.

With schools already seeking to avoid having to provide a suitable education for any child with above average needs or below average expectations through such methods, anything that would allow them to use this form of spurious complaint to completely wash their hands of any child that would cost them more effort or lower their exam results by insisting that any child they can file these complaints about be home educated instead of attending a school is worrying at the very least.

There is also the concern that removing children that are actually vulnerable from schools puts them at greater risk of abuse and neglect.

however, all these things are irrelevant in the face of someone who claims to be a teacher claiming they can't deal with a classroom that isn't populated only by perfect little clone children and that removing such children is in the best interests of their clones.

 

[Gmart]

So I start a thread about a relevant topic to the education debate now. Only to get grief from other posters for daring to talk about the possible strategies we might need o take to ensure that the state don't walk all over our rights.

In return I get abuse from posters who don't seem to care enough to engage in debate.

I am sad that toggle has had a bad time, but at no point was education ever likely to be withdrawn and so (s)he could easily have just ignored it!

So I ask to debate what if the state decided to threaten non-compliance with the withdrawal of education, based on the premise that if you don't care enough to do what the contract said, then you're probably not much into the idea of education and are probably communicating this to your children, encouraging them even to disrupt classes!!

A terrible attitude I'm sure most will agree, but shouldn't we anticipate this measure and ask what we would do about it, or shall we just bury our heads in the sand, coz that sooo works...

So what should be in these agreements?

A clean child should be a minimum, and by that I mean clean clothes to start with, not detracting from the small percentage of children who will voluntarily throw themselves in mud more than once...

 

[_angel_]

LMHF and I have both had experience of spurious complaints being made against us and our children because they need a bit more attention than average. IIRC, we were also both younger than the average mother at the school and in social housing as well. Seen as an easy victim, someone that could be picked on and didn't have the knowledge or ability to fight back. When I sought to address the accusation that my child was being sent to school in dirty clothing, I was refused access to the person who had recorded the accusation and was told that I had to go through the health visitor service, an group that would not be having any dealings with my child after they had started school.

This all sounds very familiar. Although in my case it was down to the imagination of a dangerously inept social worker rather than the school.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So I start a thread about a relevant topic to the education debate now. Only to get grief from other posters for daring to talk about the possible strategies we might need o take to ensure that the state don't walk all over our rights.

In return I get abuse from posters who don't seem to care enough to engage in debate.

I am sad that toggle has had a bad time, but at no point was education ever likely to be withdrawn and so (s)he could easily have just ignored it!

So I ask to debate what if the state decided to threaten non-compliance with the withdrawal of education, based on the premise that if you don't care enough to do what the contract said, then you're probably not much into the idea of education and are probably communicating this to your children, encouraging them even to disrupt classes!!

A terrible attitude I'm sure most will agree, but shouldn't we anticipate this measure and ask what we would do about it, or shall we just bury our heads in the sand, coz that sooo works...

So what should be in these agreements?

A clean child should be a minimum, and by that I mean clean clothes to start with, not detracting from the small percentage of children who will voluntarily throw themselves in mud more than once...

Clean in comparison to what, exactly?
As usual, your threads fall dying on the ramparts of your own intransigence.

 

[Gmart]

As usual you judge before you think.

clean as in clean clothes each day, or at least every two!

 

[Stobart Stopper]

Should there be one?

Is it reasonable to expect parents to deliver their children clean so that they don't just scratch and fidget through the lessons?

And clean clothes?

And fed well?

How much should the school do?

What else should be on the list? Producing clean children who have been fed would seem reasonable, but how about if they refuse to be part of the educative process and just sit in the class being disruptive? Should education be refused to these children if their parents don't want to know and refuse to back up the school?

Maybe the agreement should also state that the parents support the school in its education policy? After all the parents always have the right to educate their children at home...

We have one, about doing homework. total waste of time as the school hardly gives out enough homework.

 

[Gmart]

It has been suggested that parents should sign of homework as done with students who fail to do it of their own accord.

This works, but again only if the parents care enough to back the need for homework above the kids want to play computer games etc