Agreements between Parents and Schools

[ViolentPanda]

As usual you judge before you think.

As usual you react before you think.

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

Who's going to inspect and keep records of the cleanliness of children, administrate this portion of your parent-school agreement?
My paternal grandmother was a schoolmistress of a rural school. The children there wore clean clothes every day. Their parents, who were mostly poor, took pride in things like that. Fact was though, that the children mostly stank, because normal social practice at the time was to only bathe once a week.

For modern-day children there's a more insidious barrier to hygiene, if one's family is poor. It's called the water meter, and it dictates for some families that they can only change their clothes every couple of days, unless they want to go without heat or food instead.

In fact I'll amend my first sentence. It's not just that you react before you think, it's that sometimes you don't appear to think at all.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

My school had one about homework, way back in the 1970s, and boy did they give us loads! We even had "homework diaries" that our parents had to sign to say they'd inspected our homework.

 

[mentalchik]

My school had one about homework, way back in the 1970s, and boy did they give us loads! We even had "homework diaries" that our parents had to sign to say they'd inspected our homework.

My son has one of those !

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

As usual you react before you think.

Who's going to inspect and keep records of the cleanliness of children, administrate this portion of your parent-school agreement?
My paternal grandmother was a schoolmistress of a rural school. The children there wore clean clothes every day. Their parents, who were mostly poor, took pride in things like that. Fact was though, that the children mostly stank, because normal social practice at the time was to only bathe once a week.

For modern-day children there's a more insidious barrier to hygiene, if one's family is poor. It's called the water meter, and it dictates for some families that they can only change their clothes every couple of days, unless they want to go without heat or food instead.

In fact I'll amend my first sentence. It's not just that you react before you think, it's that sometimes you don't appear to think at all.

He also doesnt seem to have connected the idea that for children from the poorest families education is likely to be the only chance they will have to improve their futures.But intends that they should be demied that chance on the basis that their parents( for a whole number of reasons) may be having difficulty meeting their needs.

BUt hey, if they are dirty or scratch their parents dont care about it... mmmm theres a blinding lack of logic there

 

[ViolentPanda]

My son has one of those !

It worked too, AFAICR. Okay, I may have done some of my homework while still at school, but my folks nearly always checked that I'd done it.

Of course, we had the added incentive back then, that at my school no homework meant a meeting with Mr. Cane.

 

[ViolentPanda]

He also doesnt seem to have connected the idea that for children from the poorest families education is likely to be the only chance they will have to improve their futures...

It's certainly true in my own case, coming from a very poor background, that non-judgemental access to primary and secondary education stood me in good stead, and it appears to have done the same for many of my peers, people Mr. Marthews may have caused to be written off for being a bit whiffy, scruffy or otherwise non-compliant to his diktat

...But intends that they should be demied that chance on the basis that their parents( for a whole number of reasons) may be having difficulty meeting their needs.

Which would be great if the principle aim of his idea was to alienate an entire swathe of children from even the temptation to engage with education, but not particularly useful otherwise.

BUt hey, if they are dirty or scratch their parents dont care about it... mmmm theres a blinding lack of logic there

Mr. Marthews often displays his own unique brand of logic though, doesn't he?

 

[Gmart]

Much as it would be more fun for you all if I were to state that the poor should not have an education, but unfortunately the reality is that I have suggested that parents should have the right to choose whether their child should have an education. Slightly different.

Also i pointed out that this might be used as a means to stop the education of the disruptive children, which again is not quite the same as saying that this is what should happen.

Still don't let truth get in the way

I am just keen to discuss this evident move towards more contracts and find out what those parent on here feel could fairly be in them. However it would seem that the parents here are more concerned with insulting me rather than caring about what might happen to the children should this happen...

The state is moving towards this future no matter how many insults this lot can land on me. If there is anyone who wishes to engage on this subject and discuss what rights children and parents should have, then feel free; otherwise I will continue to ignore the insults.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

The state is moving towards this future no matter how many insults this lot can land on me. If there is anyone who wishes to engage on this subject and discuss what rights children and parents should have, then feel free; otherwise I will continue to ignore the insults.

Link?? proof? cite??
The right to a state funded education is enshrined in law, in the education act 1996. A child has a right to an education under the human rights act also
"No one shall be denied the right to education" - Article 2 of Protocol 1 ECHR
The state has to provide an education suitable to age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs a child may have. The state HAS to provide this unless the parents actively choose to home educate- and they the state must act if there is evidence a suitable education is not being provided for the child at a school or otherwise.
Home education is not something LEA's are allowed to force someone to do by removing a childs right to education in school or otherwise- quite the opposite

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-r...ght-to-education/the-right-to-education.shtml


But hey lets not allow the law to get in the way of your ridiculous claims eh?

do you have any evidence the state is in any way moving towards a future where this is not the case and denying children an education under the law ( as above)
Because Id really like to see it if you do

 

[Funky_monks]

Quite.

I got a good education in spite of teachers not because of them.

Contracts?

Whilst it is a persons right to an education, teachers will have to learn to actually do their job as oppose to waste time whinging about it.

Every school/class has disruptive pupils. Teachers should be able to deal with them.

 

[Gmart]

Unload it all onto the teachers eh? That'll work.... not!

Still LMHF, in her usual abrasive way is right. The right to education is enshrined atm, and so this nullifies any need for the parents to pay any attention to these contracts.

So maybe the government will change the law when it is perceived as getting too bad, maybe they won't, but I have nothing to back up this conjecture except that politicians don't seem to let laws/rights get in the way before.

Still if people feel confidence in the UK system to do this, then LMHF et al are right to ignore the possibility.

Personally, I think that they will change the law to make education at home the default if the contracts are not signed and kept to. Only a personal opinion tho.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Unload it all onto the teachers eh? That'll work.... not!

That isn't what Funky_monks said though, is it?
The fact is that unless "parent-school agreements" are reciprocal contracts, unless the parent receives the same level of guarantees as the school authorities do, then they're not "agreements" at all, they're window-dressing for authoritarian interventionism.

Personally, I think that they will change the law to make education at home the default if the contracts are not signed and kept to. Only a personal opinion tho.

They'd only do it if they didn't have to pick up the tab, and I can't see how they could pull that one off , given the possible social effects of doing so.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

Unload it all onto the teachers eh? That'll work.... not!

Still LMHF, in her usual abrasive way is right. The right to education is enshrined atm, and so this nullifies any need for the parents to pay any attention to these contracts.

So maybe the government will change the law when it is perceived as getting too bad, maybe they won't, but I have nothing to back up this conjecture except that politicians don't seem to let laws/rights get in the way before.

Still if people feel confidence in the UK system to do this, then LMHF et al are right to ignore the possibility.

Personally, I think that they will change the law to make education at home the default if the contracts are not signed and kept to. Only a personal opinion tho.

aah so as I thought, theres no evidence whatsoever for what youve claimed.

like i said.. any evidence that they will change the law to make education at home the default?
You also seem to be assuming education at home is for people who dont care about education... the evidence points to quite the opposite, that children educated at home generally excel, outperforming their schooled peers academically?

YOu also show a blinding ignorance of the social and political motivations behind governments insisting on overseeing education.... you really should read 'dumbing us down' by John Taylor Gatto... although, given your contributions here you probably wouldnt be able to understand whats written there

also its got nothing to do with confidence in the education system that we believe education will be a right... its in the belief that the government wont be doing away with article 2 of the convention or human rights... which is unlikely wouldnt you say? Or are you really trying to make out you are right STILL?

 

[_angel_]

Quite.

I got a good education in spite of teachers not because of them.

Contracts?

Whilst it is a persons right to an education, teachers will have to learn to actually do their job as oppose to waste time whinging about it.

Every school/class has disruptive pupils. Teachers should be able to deal with them.

Yeah but the problem is since they've closed so many special schools (particularly for kids classed as milder special needs) mainstream schools are expected to deal with kids in an environment often not suited to them.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

That isn't what Funky_monks said though, is it?
The fact is that unless "parent-school agreements" are reciprocal contracts, unless the parent receives the same level of guarantees as the school authorities do, then they're not "agreements" at all, they're window-dressing for authoritarian interventionism.

They'd only do it if they didn't have to pick up the tab, and I can't see how they could pull that one off , given the possible social effects of doing so.

They arent... hence many parents refusal to sign or keep to them. They are a one way street of "You will do and you will see that your children do XY or Z"
They provide no guarantees or assurances of quality of educational provision, safety of the pupil or any other provisions to be made by a school ( such as a good quality balanced school meal for instance or provision of books and other materials)

so they arent contracts, they arent enforceable and nor will they be in the future... unless schools and local authorities are willing to quantify what they will provide in terms of a minimum standard for each child....

 

[Gmart]

. its in the belief that the government wont be doing away with article 2 of the convention or human rights...

If they get home education then they could argue that education IS being offered, or maybe they would argue that education HAS been provided but was refused thru not acceding to the contract.

And when will you stop the gleeful insults? You just make yourself look like that is all you have in your life.

there is no need to state that such and such a book would prob be beyond my intelligence, that's just a needless insult where I have given you none.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

I didnt say it was beyond your intelligence.I said given your contributions you wouldnt be able to understand Gatto....
Maybe you should try reading alternative philosohies of education rather than assuming you are right, anyone who is giving you an alternative POV is wrong and flinging insults.

Sure, be insulted by others opinions if you wish, perhaps thats because you find it threatening to have others suggest that you arent correct and that others dont necessarily want to agree with you and have your thread be directed by you along your path of thought? as has happened here and many times in the past with your recent dylsexia thread for instance.
As much as people told you you were incorrect, tried to inform you about the issues ( as they have here) Youve chosen to accuse people of being insulting and trying to derail.

Maybe you should read what is written here and try and be a little more open minded?
Alternatively you could sit and talk to yourself and agree with yourself... it would maybe cause you less stress

anyway, Id be interested to hear how saying "You can be home educated, our obligation is ended" constitutes the state providing an education or a child not being denied an education....
because if a parent cant keep their child clean Id be interested to know how you propose they could possibly provide an education suitable to age, ability, apitute and any special needs they may have.

again, any evidence you have would be great,Id be interested to read it.. anything which backs any aspect of anything youve said at all on this thread?

 

[Gmart]

Maybe you should try reading alternative philosohies of education rather than assuming you are right, anyone who is giving you an alternative POV is wrong and flinging insults.

Right back at ya LMHF! This cuts both ways you know.

And again yr on about the dyslexia debate. Well I am more informed than you wish to believe, and again you should take your own advice, here is an article by Julian Elliot who is a professor of education.

Will you dismiss him out of hand, or will you take your own advice and consider that he might have a point to add to the debate, esp considering he is prob more qualified than either you or I.

If you DO wish to revive that debate then let's have some respect for this thread and transfer to the original thread...
So like I say, cuts both ways that LMHF, openmindedness is a bit difficult like that

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

You really arent worth debating with
One theory.. against a weath of evidence...and you are still no better informed. Particularly on your latest "phonic spelling" thread why would you need it, if dyslexia is a myth? If its a myth why isnt it 'solved' easily? did anyone take him seriously? I think you'll find they didnt. It was a desperate attention seeking, headline grabbing 5 minute wonder. he couldnt back it with any substantiated peer reviewed research as far as I can recall


now, evidence for anything youve said on this thread?? like I said, anything at all?

 

[ViolentPanda]

They arent... hence many parents refusal to sign or keep to them. They are a one way street of "You will do and you will see that your children do XY or Z"
They provide no guarantees or assurances of quality of educational provision, safety of the pupil or any other provisions to be made by a school ( such as a good quality balanced school meal for instance or provision of books and other materials)

so they arent contracts, they arent enforceable and nor will they be in the future... unless schools and local authorities are willing to quantify what they will provide in terms of a minimum standard for each child....

Which will never happen because that would mean making LEAs directly responsible for their failings as well as their successes.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

Given that often say half of secondary schools fail to give children anything near good education its highly unlikely that will happen any time soon

 

[ViolentPanda]

If they get home education then they could argue that education IS being offered...

Only if "they" were willing to quantify what "home education" entailed.

...or maybe they would argue that education HAS been provided but was refused thru not acceding to the contract.

No, they could only argue that it had been offered, as provision presupposes that something has been supplied.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

Only if "they" were willing to quantify what "home education" entailed.

No, they could only argue that it had been offered, as provision presupposes that something has been supplied.

and in order for it to be provided... it would need to continue to be supplied by the state ( or agencies of) even if the child was at home...

which isnt what Gmarthrews appears to be proposing happens?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Given that often say half of secondary schools fail to give children anything near good education its highly unlikely that will happen any time soon

Highly unlikely, verging on impossible, even if you're approaching the idea purely from the perspective of divining what political effects it would have.

There's no way a central govt dept as important as the DfE would make itself such a hostage to fortune, because they know which schools fail and why, but prefer "education" to be viewed as an overall phenomenon, rather than the "building blocks" such as the LEAs being exposed to too much scrutiny. "League tables" hide as much as they reveal.

 

[ViolentPanda]

and in order for it to be provided... it would need to continue to be supplied by the state ( or agencies of) even if the child was at home...

which isnt what Gmarthrews appears to be proposing happens?

At the mo the state has an inspectorial role in home education. Inspectors from the LEA meet with parents, assess what is being taught etc. IIRC inspections are 1-2 times a year.
If you expand that by requiring parents whose offspring don't meet Mr. Marthews' seemingly arbitrary criteria to "home educate" their children (regardless of the likely social consequences to the families required to do this) then we're looking at a necessary expansion of bureaucracy on a scale that will suck funding from mainstream education to the detriment of all.

All because of children scratching themselves. Ah well...

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

IN england and Wales this is the legal situation regards home education
http://www.education-otherwise.org/Legal/SummLawEng&Wls.htm

They dont have the right to inspect home education, nor assess what is being taught nor order parents to provide any particular form of education... contrary to what LEA's would have people believe their role is..... ( which is as you said above)

Sections 437 to 443 of the Education Act 1996 place a duty upon local education authorities to take certain actions if it appears that a child is not being properly educated.

If it appears to a local education authority that a child of compulsory school age in their area is not receiving suitable education, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise, they shall serve a notice in writing on the parent requiring him to satisfy them within the period specified in the notice that the child is receiving such education. (s 437 (1))
The local authority’s legal duty is concerned solely with children who appear not to be receiving suitable education. Beyond this, nothing in the Act requires a local authority to carry out regular monitoring of provision where a child is receiving education otherwise than at school.

However, case law (Phillips v Brown, Divisional Court [20 June 1980, unreported]) has established that a local authority may initially ask parents who are educating their children at home for information in order to assess whether it appears to the local authority that no suitable education is being provided.

In Phillips v Brown, Lord Donaldson said:

Of course such a request is not the same as a notice under s 37 (1) of the Education Act 1944 [now s 437 (1) of the Education Act 1996] and the parents will be under no duty to comply. However it would be sensible for them to do so. If parents give no information or adopt the course … of merely stating that they are discharging their duty without giving any details of how they are doing so, the LEA will have to consider and decide whether it ‘appears’ to it that the parents are in breach of s 36 [now s 7 of the Education Act 1996].
If a local authority chooses to approach a family and informally ask for information, parents may establish that a child is receiving an efficient and suitable education in a number of ways. Parents might, for example, offer either
a written report,
samples of work,
a meeting at their home, with or without the child being present,
a meeting elsewhere, with or without the child,
an endorsement of the educational provision by a recognised third party, or
information in any other appropriate form

HTH

bUt I cant see where "you dont keep to our contract, we dont provide your child with a school place" nor " we deem that your child is recieving an education as we are refusing to provide it" fits into any of that....

 

[Gmart]

You really arent worth debating with

Didn't think you could take your own advice. He makes some good points from a position of authority. Still your attitude of telling others to be open to different (ie your) opinions, is shown up as what it is. One set of rules for everyone else and one set of rules for yourself.

Don't feel bad about this, even if you admit it to yourself (or to anyone else), most people delude themselves this way and attack others who try not to.

Still maybe you will stop attacking me at the drop of a hat? I doubt it tho

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

Like I said, he made some claims... which he couldnt substantiate with peer reviewed research( whihc would substantiate what hes saying and make them scientifically valid)
He made some comments about children with Low IQ's benefitting from the same teaching as children with high IQ's but that didnt equate to dyslexia being a myth, nor did he prove that dyslexia was isolated to children with high IQ's only ( which it isnt although dyslexic children often do have high IQ's and are unable to pportray that through the written word due to weaknesses in sensory processing) nor did he prove that dyslexia ( being a combination of weaknesses in various areas or processing ability) did not exist.

Id like you to show me where Ive attacked you or thrown insults at you while were here. Presenting alternative opinion or refuting your claims doesnt equate with insults or personal attacks

oh and Im still waiting for any evidence for anything youve claimed on this thread... anything at all?

 

[Gmart]

What I don't like about this debate is the assumption that teachers should have no rights at all.

That they should be able to put up with whatever behaviour, and the beauty is that we are to blame for the behaviour of the kids.

If we 'can't keep them under control' or 'can't enthuse them' then it is our fault, and if the parents just couldn't give a monkey about if they behave, then that's OK because parents can do no wrong...

If you have parents who refuse to back the school when their little darling abuses every teacher, then teachers in general have no chance of teaching them anything, and they are a disruptive effect on a class, in which there might be a majority of kids who want to learn.

But still at no point does anyone acknowledge that parents use schools as a free babysitting service, and hide behind their 'right' to education.

Well if it gets too bad then this right will probably be taken away, or legislated around.

We already have problems attracting high quality teachers into the profession, due in part to the view that teachers are not given the power to keep order in the classrooms. We have the right to escort children out, but if they attack you and the parents don't care, then what do you do? Next day the kid is back in school, or maybe gets suspended for a few days. Often they tell their parents lies about how the teachers behave getting them wound up as well.

So come on, if you all think you're that clever, how would you solve this issue, or are you just gonna blame the schools again? Or the teachers? Heaven forbid that the parents might be at fault!!

If this situation continues then we WILL see changes to keep the disruptive children out just to keep the schools going.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Oh look, another patented "Gmarthews shifts the goalposts" moment!!

 

[toggle]

Oh look, another patented "Gmarthews shifts the goalposts" moment!!

amazing isn't it. I don't recall abusing the teacher being in the original arguments. That was about removing a child's right to education because the child was perceived as being dirty.