Cruel School?

janninew

meg72 wrote: »

In my post I called these little more than babies, OK stand corrected they are children. no need to sound more emotive surely.
They are very very young children. In my day they wouldnt even have been at school. Do you expect a 3-4 year old to understand financial things, I dont, they were the ones punished by not attending the show, not the parents. Although if if was just an oversight I do the the parents will punish themselves when they realise what happened.

Surely a three to four year old is entitled to be innocent of these matters and cared for by all of society. The show was already paid for. Why the need to so publically remove these little ones, if that is a more acceptable description of them. For christs sake they will learn soon enough of the lack of money.

IT WAS WRONG TO WRONG TO DRAW ATTENTION TO THESE CHILDREN IN SUCH A PUBLIC WAY

I can totally see your point, young children are innoncent, but their parents are responsible for them at the end of the day.

Yes the show was paid for, but we don't have all the facts, maybe the parents of these children reguarly don't pay and the nursery had to take a stand, maybe the parents who do pay had complained previously at the unfairness that they pay and others don't - who knows! Without all the facts we can only guess. Maybe the thread title should be changed to cruel school/cruel parents? Maybe the nursery messed up, or maybe the parents just couldn't be bothered, either explanation is plausable.

POPPYOSCAR

janninew wrote: »

I can totally see your point, young children are innoncent, but their parents are responsible for them at the end of the day.

Yes the show was paid for, but we don't have all the facts, maybe the parents of these children reguarly don't pay and the nursery had to take a stand, maybe the parents who do pay had complained previously at the unfairness that they pay and others don't - who knows! Without all the facts we can only guess. Maybe the thread title should be changed to cruel school/cruel parents? Maybe the nursery messed up, or maybe the parents just couldn't be bothered, either explanation is plausable.

I don't care what the reasoning was behind it I personally don't agree with 3 year olds being treated in this way, full stop.

Fang_3

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

I don't care what the reasoning was behind it I personally don't agree with 3 year olds being treated in this way, full stop.

Then why don't you direct your aggression towards those that caused it to happen? The parents!

danielle1977

i don't agree with children being treated like this either. on friday my sons school is having a 'whole school picnic' which is lovely except my oh is away and I'm on placement at uni and can't go, he is really upset, therefore is is staying with our babysitter (17 year old from next door). They are having a picnic outside. She could take them but I think around all of his friends they get over excitable and I don't want her to struggle. I don't think schools always think through what they are doing.

PS before anyone starts about not using a registered childminder-see my previous thread from beginning of the month about a lcak of this in my area...

janninew

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

I don't care what the reasoning was behind it I personally don't agree with 3 year olds being treated in this way, full stop.

That's fine, your allowed your opinion. I just feel that if it was the nurseries decision to not allow the children to not watch the show, they must hve good reasons, most nursery staff love children and aren't out to hurt them or treat them badly, I'm just trying to see this from all the different points of view.

mountainofdebt

well there's an easy way to stop all the gripes and moans about schools these days and that's for all extra curricular activities to stop.

No problems then about non-paying parents/cost of school trips/sponsorship events

POPPYOSCAR

Fang wrote: »

Then why don't you direct your aggression towards those that caused it to happen? The parents!

Where did the 'aggression' feature in my post?

Now who is twisting words!


Yes that is possibly where the blame lies - but definately not the 3 year olds!

~daisy~_2

my son hasnt been on 2 trips - the first 2 years ago in yr 5 - there had been a flurry of things to pay for and he wasnt overly bothered so didnt go - said there was about 8 or 10 kids left behind

about a month ago there was another trip he didnt go on - he forgot to give us the letter and when questioned again said he wasnt that bothered - this time there was about 40 children who didnt go

quite telling i think .....

galvanizersbaby

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

I don't care what the reasoning was behind it I personally don't agree with 3 year olds being treated in this way, full stop.

I think the age of the children makes this more emotive but if the children were older would your opinion be different?

Surely still it is not the fault of the children whatever the age.

The parents that refuse to pay tend not to change over the years so where is the line drawn?

Should their children be funded by others throughout school?

I don't know the answer - as others have pointed out we don't have the full facts as to why the school made this decision or why the parents didn't pay - we are just guessing.

I too think this thread should have been titled 'cruel school?/cruel parents?

POPPYOSCAR

mountainofdebt wrote: »

well there's an easy way to stop all the gripes and moans about schools these days and that's for all extra curricular activities to stop.

No problems then about non-paying parents/cost of school trips/sponsorship events

I quite agree.

They are getting more and more expensive(as are a lot of other things)
and this would take the pressure off both parents and teachers.