Cruel School?

vaio

meritaten wrote: »

er - GracieP wasnt the only one - my parents had to borrow money from a wealthy relative for me to go on my one and only school trip abroad. and my dad worked down the pit! but his wages only covered the necessities - not luxuries!
and nothing much has changed! those on the national minimum wage have to pay rent or mortgage utilities food etc and there is NOTHING left over. so the constant demands by schools for 50ps, £1s, £5s etc cannot always be met.
it really distresses me how little sympathy is given on this thread to those who are on minumum wage or benefits.
If you say you cannot afford these costs then you are immediately accused of being a scrounger or a druggie or spending all your money on fags and booze! I suspect this is by people earning at least £30k a year or more. I HAVE noticed that the more people earn the less tolerant they are of people less well off!

Fang wrote: »

Perhaps that's because those that earn that sort of money worked hard to get to a place where they can earn it and they are sick to the back teeth of people who haven't the sense to do anything moaning about how hard done by they are?

Both OH & I are in the happy position of earning over £30k and we are perfectly happy for our tax £££ to go towards funding a welfare state which provides universal inclusive equal and free at the point of use education and health care to all independently of family income particularly as it was this very welfare state that provided us with the education which resulted in the earning power we have not to mention free stitches/medicines/treatments for assorted non life threatening injuries & illnesses over the years.

vaio

vaio wrote: »

…..Interesting idea the kids of rich tax paying parents “deserving” better treatment in state schools, maybe we should extend the idea to other basic services like the NHS? …...

Fang wrote: »

……I wouldn't be opposed to it. I do think things that are above what is necessary to save lives should be restricted those people who have paid more into the system…….

vaio wrote: »

…..There’s the “scum” word again, I think it would sound much better if it read “You should remember that state education is not free. Tax payers pay for it according to how rich they are so everyone can use it on an equal basis” as that more accurately reflects the inclusive system I want the state to provide…...

Fang wrote: »

……That might be what you want, but it's not what the majority of the decent parents want. …...

If you are seriously suggesting that “decent parents” want a state education and health system where children get treated differently depending on parental wealth then I really do despair

vaio wrote: »

…..It’s a truism that the offspring of parents who get actively involved in their education are going to have a better academic outcome and even more so if the parents are well heeled but it not the job of schools the reinforce these advantages. The schools contribution to the education process should be as linked as possible to the potential of the child rather than the status/wealth of the parents.

Fang wrote: »

……It's certainly not the job of the school to counteract these advantages which is what you are suggesting. Which sounds very much like communism and has the same flaw. Very few would go up and benefit from higher standards, the majority would be dragged down by the scum.

As is clear from my post I’m not suggesting schools should counteract the advantages, merely that they should treat all children equally with the aim of realising each child’s potential.

On a slightly personal (but friendly and respectful) note, you do seem to be fixated on these “scum” parents, maybe you should seek some medical advice on it as it doesn’t seem entirely healthy to me.

Spendless

galvanizersbaby wrote: »

I think for this thread the age of the children is largely irrelevant due to the fact that this situation has occurred in an actual state school with a pre-school nursery class attached.

Where I am there are no such schools - for pre school children there are private nurseries or playgroups type set ups - I only have experience of a private nursery.

If this situation had cropped up in a private nursery or playgroup I'm not sure what the response would be - maybe the same? not sure?

I have not seen children excluded in this way (that's not to say they haven't been) in my children's school so far (they are only aged 6 and 7) but there is a little girl in DS's class that has the sort of parents which I think Fang is referring to in his posts and on the first school trip she was included but didn't arrive with the necessary packed lunch (this is usually provided by the school for her but the coach was leaving before the lunch delivery)) so I gave her my own packed lunch (make myself one for work every day) and ran to the shop to get her a drink - she looked so upset when the teacher explained she had to have a lunch with her and whoever had brought her to school that day hadn't hung around - she was 5 at the time - it is a shame

Children are not excluded in my kids schools in this way as they are not funded on the pay to view basis. Instead the school fund-raises. That way you contribute as much or as little as you want to whichever fund-raising activity (eg I meet every request with the exception of sponsership ones) and when the school has enough money it books for the children to watch a drama group in the school hall and everyone gets to do so.


As to why the parents of these children didn't pay assumming they had seen the letter and not forgotten, maybethey are tight, maybe they blow their money on fags and lambrini, maybe they've had more kids than they can afford, or got a mortgage they can't or maybe they've just been hit by illness, redundancy, a pay cut, a relationship break up, funeral costs from a relative dying, the boiler breaking and so on. None of this is the kids fault.

Am not sure where I'd be on Fang's view of people paying having better if they pay more tax as I don't earn enough to do so and DH is a 40% payer, does that mean I should get less or more or divide it down the middle and get average, or perhaps the kids school day should be affluent or poor depending on whether me or hubby does the school run.;)
I'm not quite sure which category

Fang_3

Spendless wrote: »

Children are not excluded in my kids schools in this way as they are not funded on the pay to view basis. Instead the school fund-raises. That way you contribute as much or as little as you want to whichever fund-raising activity (eg I meet every request with the exception of sponsership ones) and when the school has enough money it books for the children to watch a drama group in the school hall and everyone gets to do so.


As to why the parents of these children didn't pay assumming they had seen the letter and not forgotten, maybethey are tight, maybe they blow their money on fags and lambrini, maybe they've had more kids than they can afford, or got a mortgage they can't or maybe they've just been hit by illness, redundancy, a pay cut, a relationship break up, funeral costs from a relative dying, the boiler breaking and so on. None of this is the kids fault.

Am not sure where I'd be on Fang's view of people paying having better if they pay more tax as I don't earn enough to do so and DH is a 40% payer, does that mean I should get less or more or divide it down the middle and get average, or perhaps the kids school day should be affluent or poor depending on whether me or hubby does the school run.;)
I'm not quite sure which category

My view already happens, but in a roundabout way. I went to an excellent primary school because my parents could afford to buy a house in the catchment area. In fact, opposite it.

I was accepted to one of the best selective private day schools in the country, which my parents could afford, and the only reason I didn't attend was because after my grandmother suddenly died, there was no one who could drive the 40 minute journey twice a day after that. I still went to one of the best state schools in the country, but you could tell the difference between the two because the state school had to accept an element of what I call scum.

I don't think people realise how much harm one disruptive child can do to the education of others and it's not a case of just removing them. Sometimes the harm is irreversible. I was fortunate enough that my parents were very involved in my education and spent time helping me with anything that I was struggling with, but does that negate the effects of others? No.

I think something has gone incredibly wrong when there is so much of a limited education budget spent on 'naughty' children and trying to bribe them, who are often the product of families that don't care and don't contribute, whereas the children of the decent families are sidelined. It cannot be fair that one child can have thousands and thousands of pounds spent on incentives and support workers to try and get them to focus on school, whereas the higher achieving children are seen to have met the targets and therefore don't need any help and are not given any incentives at all.

Then people wonder why our scientific industries, to give one example, are in such a state and why certain professions are seen as elitist and are only staffed from the higher echeleons of society. It's because the state system is failing all children. Not just to ones who can't be bothered, but also the ones that can be bothered, and do put the work in. And that, no matter how you look at it, can never be right.

Fang_3

vaio wrote: »

Both OH & I are in the happy position of earning over £30k and we are perfectly happy for our tax £££ to go towards funding a welfare state which provides universal inclusive equal and free at the point of use education and health care to all independently of family income particularly as it was this very welfare state that provided us with the education which resulted in the earning power we have not to mention free stitches/medicines/treatments for assorted non life threatening injuries & illnesses over the years.

The difference is that you had access to better free education, including free university. Today we don't and that goes someway to explain the rising discontent with the system.

galvanizersbaby

vaio wrote: »

Really nice generous gesture on your part donating your lunch & drink but isn’t there an argument that it was the school who were at fault by not providing a lunch for a child who is entitled to free lunches?

It could be the parent, knowing their child is entitled to free packed lunch every day, assumed quite reasonably that it would be provided on the trip day too particularly as they probably wouldn’t know what time the lunch delivery is.

This was not the case here the parents had been asked in advance by the teacher if it would be ok for the child to bring a packed lunch for this one day due to the timing of the lunch delivery.
Apparently the father had agreed to this but unfortunately for whatever reason (high as a kite usually) this had been forgotten.

The little girl has a poor attendance record at school as apparently do her siblings and rarely wears school uniform and her clothes are visibly dirty - last winter she didn't appear to have a coat in the snow so I gave her one of my daughters.
I worry about her a lot - her parents are neglectful and though they are on benefits they are both drug users so I am guessing that's where the money goes - I feel so sorry for her - she is such a lovely little girl

onlyroz

Fang wrote: »

I don't think people realise how much harm one disruptive child can do to the education of others and it's not a case of just removing them. Sometimes the harm is irreversible. I was fortunate enough that my parents were very involved in my education and spent time helping me with anything that I was struggling with, but does that negate the effects of others? No.

I think something has gone incredibly wrong when there is so much of a limited education budget spent on 'naughty' children and trying to bribe them, who are often the product of families that don't care and don't contribute, whereas the children of the decent families are sidelined. It cannot be fair that one child can have thousands and thousands of pounds spent on incentives and support workers to try and get them to focus on school, whereas the higher achieving children are seen to have met the targets and therefore don't need any help and are not given any incentives at all.

I agree with you to an extent. I have two nieces. One is "bright" but is a trouble-maker who has (so far) narrowly avoided getting a criminal record. She is currently being looked after by the state, and has been taken on foreign holidays etc, all in the name of rehabilitation, and an attempt (which probably won't work) to turn her into a well-rounded individual. Her sister is less bright, but hard working, and is left wondering why on earth her trouble-making sister is getting all the attention, and is getting all this money spent on her. I pity the kids that have to sit in lessons with her.

balletshoes

I think its worth noting that just because a primary school has an excellent reputation when you/your child starts their education there, doesn't mean it will necessarily have the same reputation when they leave it - a change in the school leadership/head teacher can have an effect on this. Similarly, a school can have a bad rep, then be turned around in a matter of a few years, by changing the leadership team etc.

I do kind of despair when I read posts here about elitism etc in state schools, but accept it is now the way things are going. And its a shame in my opinion.
When I went to school, you went to your catchment area school, you all behaved in class, if you didn't you got punished by the teacher/head teacher. If I misbehaved at school, my parents were told, and they punished me too.

In my daughters class at primary school, there is a little boy who is and always has been disruptive - he's not a bad kid, he has behavioural problems (which I think have just recently been formally diagnosed). He has a teaching assistant to help him when he's struggling, but when he's behaving well, that assistant helps any other pupil in the class with their activities etc. This little boy can and does learn, he is improving with his education, so I personally think he is best placed in the class he's in - his age group peers, where he is seeing good examples of how to behave at school. All the other children in the class know and accept that he has problems, and they deal with it in the same way the teacher does - as they have the teachers example to follow. As far as I can see, my daughter is not disadvantaged in any way by having this disruptive child in her class - she is learning that not everyone is the same, and that everyone deserves to be treated with respect.

I guess some of the children in my daughters school would be classed as "scum" by some folk here - but you know what? It really hasn't made a difference to the class performance, school or its reputation - the troublemakers are far outweighed by the conscientious hard-working kids (and teaching staff) who don't let them stand in their way of progress.

I don't know of any child in my daughters housing estate-based primary school who is given treats etc by social work etc to attend school or behave there. Not to say the social work aren't involved with some of the families, but not for this purpose.

nottslass_2

Fang wrote: »

My view already happens, but in a roundabout way. I went to an excellent primary school because my parents could afford to buy a house in the catchment area. In fact, opposite it.

I was accepted to one of the best selective private day schools in the country, which my parents could afford, and the only reason I didn't attend was because after my grandmother suddenly died, there was no one who could drive the 40 minute journey twice a day after that. I still went to one of the best state schools in the country, but you could tell the difference between the two because the state school had to accept an element of what I call scum.

I don't think people realise how much harm one disruptive child can do to the education of others and it's not a case of just removing them. Sometimes the harm is irreversible. I was fortunate enough that my parents were very involved in my education and spent time helping me with anything that I was struggling with, but does that negate the effects of others? No.

I think something has gone incredibly wrong when there is so much of a limited education budget spent on 'naughty' children and trying to bribe them, who are often the product of families that don't care and don't contribute, whereas the children of the decent families are sidelined. It cannot be fair that one child can have thousands and thousands of pounds spent on incentives and support workers to try and get them to focus on school, whereas the higher achieving children are seen to have met the targets and therefore don't need any help and are not given any incentives at all.

Then people wonder why our scientific industries, to give one example, are in such a state and why certain professions are seen as elitist and are only staffed from the higher echeleons of society. It's because the state system is failing all children. Not just to ones who can't be bothered, but also the ones that can be bothered, and do put the work in. And that, no matter how you look at it, can never be right.

For one that is allegedly so well educated you do appear somewhat ignorant.

|I do not know what you Define as "Scum,but repeatedly referring to children as "scum" is frankly quite offensive.A Child cannot be held responsible for the actions of their parents.

I was fortunate to attend the best "selected entry" state school in the County and I can assure you there was more drugs,Alcohol and under age sex in that school ,than the School my Father taught at ,which was coincidently known as the worst in the City.

Fang_3

nottslass wrote: »

For one that is allegedly so well educated you do appear somewhat ignorant.

|I do not know what you Define as "Scum,but repeatedly referring to children as "scum" is frankly quite offensive.A Child cannot be held responsible for the actions of their parents.

I was fortunate to attend the best "selected entry" state school in the County and I can assure you there was more drugs,Alcohol and under age sex in that school ,than the School my Father taught at ,which was coincidently known as the worst in the City.

Did you? It didn't do much for your language skills.