Agreements between Parents and Schools

[ViolentPanda]

And violent pandas infantry man in his quest to prove that dirty clothes don't have any effect, and the house I mean what was that!!! Surreal!

When someone makes an anile statement that contains the following claim:
"I also maintain that teaching children who have been allowed to wear the same clothes several days in a row is impossible because they can't sit still. Neither could anyone in dirty clothes, you try it!!",
it seems appropriate to draw that person's attention to the fact that their claim doesn't hold water.
The "infantryman" is a very good example of someone who may have to wear the same unwashed clothes for days on end without it interfering with his ability to remain immobile and/or hidden. Or doesn't your "anyone" include any group of persons whose ability to operate outside of your claim shows you up for a bit of a twit?

As for the "house", it's actually Bentham's Panopticon, a building in which attendees/inmates can be placed under perpetual surveillance while there. If you believe that to be "surreal" then you're rather unimaginative.

 

[ViolentPanda]

In other words, you're not willing to discuss anything unless you can control the discussion to make it just about how great your ideas are. you don't want to have to engage with those who cannot see it as workable and see it as a great way for schools to increase the levels of discrimination they use against the less able.

Now you're catching on!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Q, E and very possibly D.

I don't think there's any "possibly" about it!

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think this debte is about discipline and responsibility.

Parents who cannot teach these things to their children should expect to hear about it, otherwise they are setting their children up. I do not think it is the schools' job to parent children; it is the parents.

If you're operating on the OPs assumptions then this debate isn't so much about discipline and responsibility as it is about delineating areas of responsibility and enacting limits to pupil behaviour (including scratching!) based on arbitrary criteria.

When I look at some of the service users I have worked with, I thank god I wasn't born their child. Insufficient coat, shoes, bedding, sometimes no actual bed. Poor foor, too many sweets and fizzy drinks - but they have a playstation.

Do you have enough examples of this to establish whether it's a widespread social trend, or just a phenomenon unique to your service users?
If the former, please publish, if the latter, bear in mind that your own experience may not be demonstrative of anything except your own experience.

I am QUITE sure that not all schools are perfect - my own suggested I get a vocational job as opposed to go to University, all because I left home in the lower 6th. But even so, it is not the school's job to parent the children, and that does include teaching them things at home, and not passing the buck to others. imvho

I quite agree. However, it needs to be acknowledged that schools should not expect parents to enter into agreements with schools on a basis of "sign up or have your kid excluded/kicked out (or to employ Gmarthews' euphemism, 'home educated')", they should expect any contractual agreement to place demands on both sides. Schools should not expect parents to sign up unless the school gives something in return, say a guarantee of a minimum degree of literacy and numeracy for any child (regardless of educational difficulties and the cost of dealing with them) whose behaviour meets the standard.
Not that such a thing would happen. The DfE would never countenance that degree of accountability.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

Nobody has said that
You on the other hand seem to be suggesting quite clearly that you would like the right to an education denied to those who wear dirty clothes

Can i ask you for your opinion then ( since you seem unable to debate facts)
on a child who has a dirty clothes, has head lice that havent been treated despite letters home.
The child is bright, engaging but often disruptive, has difficulty sitting still and often distracts other children in the class.He often seems tired,smells a bit and other kids sometimes call him names ( which he then reacts to causing fights) He quite often gets accused of bullying He has difficulty writing legibly,shows little interest in reading and never brings in his homework.

Home education a good situation for him under your plans? His destiny because his parent has chosen not to send him to school or support the school as you would like under your contracts?

a simple yes or no will do- if you wouldnt mind.

I have repeatedly stated that children who are disadvantaged should get more resources to the detriment of all the other kids.

ahem
a simple yes or no please.

Would this child be an ideal candidate for 'breach of contract' by the parents and the parents deemd to have chosen home education under your plans... or not?

It really is that simple which is why im asking you

 

[Eva Luna]

The DfE would never countenance that degree of accountability.

And rightly so surely.
It is not the school's responsibility to do all of the teaching, and parents should be responsible too.
I don't think that exclusion is the answer, btw.
Perhaps this is the starting point for a debate that should really lead to the qs(pl) - why are so many people having children that they are not bringing up properly? If it is true that bringing up a child is a community thing, where are the boundaries? Loose I know, but you know what I mean.

 

[Yu_Gi_Oh]

.

 

[ViolentPanda]

And rightly so surely.
It is not the school's responsibility to do all of the teaching, and parents should be responsible too.

So you don't believe that schools and education authorities should be as accountable to parents as the OP's "parent-school agreement" ideas seek to make parents accountable to schools?
Why not?

I don't think that exclusion is the answer, btw.

Never?
That seems rather a naive position to take.

Perhaps this is the starting point for a debate that should really lead to the qs(pl) - why are so many people having children that they are not bringing up properly?

I've yet to see any decent proof, despite numerous sociological studies from the 1970s onward, that the constantly reiterated claim that there are many "not properly brought up" children infesting the schooling system.
What I do see is that there is a small minority of such pupils in pretty much every state school, a fairly unchanging volume over the last 3 decades, who cause trouble, and that instead of tactics being developed to deal with these pupils, the state has successively withdrawn access to disciplinary measures that might have any effect, including exclusion and/or referral to a support unit.
BTW, what's your personal yardstick for "well brought up"?

If it is true that bringing up a child is a community thing, where are the boundaries? Loose I know, but you know what I mean.

No, actually I don't, because you haven't really said anything that reveals what you believe, you just seem to have made a few generalisations.

 

[Gmart]

When someone makes an anile statement that contains the following claim:
"I also maintain that teaching children who have been allowed to wear the same clothes several days in a row is impossible because they can't sit still. Neither could anyone in dirty clothes, you try it!!",
it seems appropriate to draw that person's attention to the fact that their claim doesn't hold water.
The "infantryman" is a very good example of someone who may have to wear the same unwashed clothes for days on end without it interfering with his ability to remain immobile and/or hidden. Or doesn't your "anyone" include any group of persons whose ability to operate outside of your claim shows you up for a bit of a twit?

As for the "house", it's actually Bentham's Panopticon, a building in which attendees/inmates can be placed under perpetual surveillance while there. If you believe that to be "surreal" then you're rather unimaginative.

I think your war example is rubbish and extreme. While your picture of a house was indeed surreal, considering your explanation was non-existent.

My example is very much more real life. A child (or adult) cannot sit still for a moment coz their clothes are dirty. An infantryman using fear of death in a war situation to stop himself from itching and thus giving away his position is just not comparing like with like. Your keenness to disagree with me has once again sent you down an extreme path, VP and shown how unconnected with reality you are.

LMHF, if you think I'm gonna fall for your bait then you really do think very little of me. Transparent. The knowledge you have about such a child is very telling, as if we would know so much! As if! Teachers out of necessity cannot become so knowledgeable, if only they had the time!

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

But GMarthews youve suggested that certain children should be 'home schooled' by state compulsion- that the opportunity to recieve state schooling is something which should be removed because of a breach of contract and that parents who dont comply should be judged to have refused state education, chosen not to accept its terms and conditions.


You also suggested that a breach of that contract could entail specific instances which would evidence such a 'breach' sending your child to school dirty or fidgeting, doesnt apply themselves in class, is ill discpiplined etc

So I gave you a scenario... as the teacher would view a child( who is a fictional character BTW) a set of characteristics.Those youve proposed in particular

Ive asked you to say, yes or no, would he be a good candidate for "home education" and the removal of the states responsibility to educate under your proposal ( which youve also claimed the state is moving towards and youve been completely unable to substantiate in any way)

It isnt difficult- since youve proposed it... would the fictional boys parents have broken their contract?

like I said, yes or no

Im having a little difficulty working out why you wont answer... since its you thats proposed such a scheme and a sanction for breach of contract.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think your war example is rubbish and extreme.

I didn't give a "war example", shteynkopf.

While your picture of a house was indeed surreal, considering your explanation was non-existent.

Hmm, it appears no-one else had a problem with right-clicking on the picture and checking the properties to see what it was.
Hardly my fault if you behave like a dolt.

My example is very much more real life. A child (or adult) cannot sit still for a moment coz their clothes are dirty.

Again, you're inventing.
You're claiming that a child or adult in dirty clothes would not be able to "sit still for a minute", and yet you know your claim is unsupportable, otherwise you'd have provided proof.
Yet again you're dressing up personal experience and anecdote (as you do on so many threads) and posting it as established fact.
More fool you.

An infantryman using fear of death in a war situation to stop himself from itching and thus giving away his position is just not comparing like with like.

I didn't mention war.
perhaps you should try to rein in your fondness for making assumptions, eh?

Your keenness to disagree with me has once again sent you down an extreme path, VP and shown how unconnected with reality you are.

How does it do that, Mr. Marthews? Personally, I suspect that yet again you're indulging in hyperbole to cover your own lack of insight.

 

[Gmart]

Hardly... you can claim that an infantryman has nothing to do with war, but excuse me if I don't. I suppose tanks are just vehicles as well...

What I like about debating with you is your instinctive attack if found to be wrong. Insulting me is not going to make an infantryman an everyday example no matter how many ways you find to comment.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

Im having a little difficulty working out why you wont answer... since its you thats proposed such a scheme and a sanction for breach of contract.

ahem...

 

[Gmart]

And you are using that excuse to to engage in a constructive debate.

Why would you let that stop you? Maybe you are uncomfortable when we leave your comfort zone of abusing people who don't dance to your tune and actually move towards an adult debate.

Just tell me when you want to debate this important issue that affects your children and more.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

So you wont answer the question....
why not?

Are you having difficulty understanding it?

I AM debating it.. Im trying to find out how you propose it would work in practice.. would home education be good for this little boy?
Would this be a breach of contract or not? Your proposal and now you wont discuss its practical application

 

[Gmart]

If in doubt continue with the insults eh? You are nice...

Just tell me when you stop wanting to catch me out, and actually engage in this debate as if you care abou anything beyond successfully insulting people...

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

insukts? catch you out?
You made a proposal..would you like to discuss it or not?
Id like you to explain its practical application.. would home education be good for this child or not?
which children would be 'home educated' under your plans?

Im trying to find the benchmark. Youve proposed something rather radical... Its only fair that you clarify

 

[ViolentPanda]

Hardly... you can claim that an infantryman has nothing to do with war...

Ah, but I haven't done that.
You really should either learn to read, or desist from posting replies to posts that only exist in your mind.

but excuse me if I don't. I suppose tanks are just vehicles as well...

What was that I was saying about your fondness for making assumptions?

What I like about debating with you is your instinctive attack if found to be wrong.

Well, if you actually did prove me wrong, and may I emphasise again the word "prove"), I'd be pleased that you had done so, but as your habit is to take your own experience as the basis of your "proofs", I'm afraid I'll have to continue "attacking" you.

Insulting me is not going to make an infantryman an everyday example no matter how many ways you find to comment.

If you say so.

So, no proof for your claim that "A child (or adult) cannot sit still for a moment coz their clothes are dirty", I take it?

 

[Gmart]

I've proposed we discuss what should and shouldn't be in these contracts and what rights of both parents and teachers/schools should be in there.

I have also suggested that the government might suggest taking education away from families who continually show that they have no interest in supporting the school by refusing to sign the contracts LMHF refuses to discuss. I have suggested that they might make home-schooling the default setting in order to do this.

Inevitably this would have children falling thru the net as happens now...

All very different from the debate LMHF insists on which is a barely concealed attempt to trap me into a position which she can then point and judge about.

Home education is very good for some children I have met a good few for whom it has worked passably well.

 

[ViolentPanda]

And you are using that excuse to to engage in a constructive debate.

Why would you let that stop you? Maybe you are uncomfortable when we leave your comfort zone of abusing people who don't dance to your tune and actually move towards an adult debate.

Just tell me when you want to debate this important issue that affects your children and more.

Quoted for posterity, and in the vain hope that Gmarthews has the self-awareness to see the irony of his post.

 

[ViolentPanda]

All very different from the debate LMHF insists on which is a barely concealed attempt to trap me into a position which she can then point and judge about.

To quote a line from "Holidays in the Sun" by The Sex Pistols:
"Can't you feel the air, there's too much paranoia..."

Home education is very good for some children I have met a good few for whom it has worked passably well.

These are generally children whose parents have deliberately removed them from the LEA's schooling system for any of a number of reasons including; bullying, delayed statementing, lack of specialist assistance and/or facilities etc. These are, as I'm sure any sensible person would agree, very different examples from those who would be victims of exclusion based on personal cleanliness. To attempt to connect the two via any link except the words "home education" is ridiculous.

 

[Gmart]

So, no proof for your claim that "A child (or adult) cannot sit still for a moment coz their clothes are dirty", I take it?

Like I say, you might feel that an infantryman is not connected with war, but I disagree.

And as far as sitting in dirty clothes is concerned it is obvious. What kind of proof would you accept I wonder. A study on fidgeting. As is often the case with you, you are reluctant to accept that dirty clothes cause discomfort because it is convenient to believe that with the agenda you have. It is blindingly obvious and your persistence shows you out to be strangely reluctant to engage. Much easier to stay on this point rather than engage in debate. A common story with you.

And if you want to go start a debate and dance a different tune then feel free. I started this thread to get a debate going on the subject I had in mind. If this were your debate I would never derail it in the way you frequently do. Do you have no ideas of your own and thus need to spew all over other peoples debates, preventing them from reaching a conclusion?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Like I say, you might feel that an infantryman is not connected with war, but I disagree.

Context is everything.

And as far as sitting in dirty clothes is concerned it is obvious.

Why is it "obvious"?

What kind of proof would you accept I wonder. A study on fidgeting.

Something more substantial than anecdote from a single person.

As is often the case with you, you are reluctant to accept that dirty clothes cause discomfort because it is convenient to believe that with the agenda you have.

I'm "reluctant to accept" because your viewed experience clashes directly with the lived experience of most working-class children of my generation, where many households didn't have washing machines and washed everything but sheets and towels by hand, so we wore the same clothes for two or three days. We also only had a bath once a week, although we washed every day.
The odd thing is that if we look at statistics for classroom disruption, exclusion etc for my and preceding generations, we don't see anything that correlates to your claim that "A child (or adult) cannot sit still for a moment coz their clothes are dirty".
Why is that, do you think?

It is blindingly obvious and your persistence shows you out to be strangely reluctant to engage.

If everything is so blindingly obvious you should have absolutely no difficulty in actually articulating support for your claims rather than obfuscating, should you?

Much easier to stay on this point rather than engage in debate. A common story with you.

I believe I have stayed "on thread" within the parameters your constant goalpost-shifting have set.

And if you want to go start a debate and dance a different tune then feel free. I started this thread to get a debate going on the subject I had in mind. If this were your debate I would never derail it in the way you frequently do. Do you have no ideas of your own and thus need to spew all over other peoples debates, preventing them from reaching a conclusion?

Spare me your blah blah blah and other avoidance behaviours and actually support your claims with something beyond "it;s obvious", please.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

Home education is very good for some children I have met a good few for whom it has worked passably well.

It is, it does work, studies find it works better than traditional schooling in producing better outcomes ( particularly academic) for children

However those who are home educated are those who's parents have chosen to do so, not beenm forced by the state through the withdrawl of state schooling

Now, if you wouldnt mind. What exactly would be the benchmark for 'breach of contract' under your proposals? ive given you a situation, you cherrypick if you wish, anything you think would constitute a breach of contract

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

To quote a line from "Holidays in the Sun" by The Sex Pistols:
"Can't you feel the air, there's too much paranoia..."

These are generally children whose parents have deliberately removed them from the LEA's schooling system for any of a number of reasons including; bullying, delayed statementing, lack of specialist assistance and/or facilities etc. These are, as I'm sure any sensible person would agree, very different examples from those who would be victims of exclusion based on personal cleanliness. To attempt to connect the two via any link except the words "home education" is ridiculous.

exactamundo

Im wondering ( again)n whether he will tell us exactly what/who would be up for 'home schooling' under his plans at all?
Its all very well having a policy you see but we need to know how dirty or disruptive he thinks should constitute 'breach'
and also the level of guaranteed education and service would be provided by the staff of any establishment which operated any such contract
Otherwise any 'contract' dscussion is pointless