Unfair Terms in Nursery Terms and Conditions

poet123

flimsier wrote: »

I wonder if you know the same person as me!

Possibly, they do sound similar!! Ours lasted much longer than 18 months unfortunately. Poor chap is dead now though, so I probably shouldn't be speaking ill of him:o

flimsier

poet123 wrote: »

Possibly, they do sound similar!! Ours lasted much longer than 18 months unfortunately. Poor chap is dead now though, so I probably shouldn't be speaking ill of him:o

Not the same person. Ours is a headteacher in his third school (lasted a lot longer than his first two). It was "satisfactory" last inspection, which is the first one he hasn't taken into a category.

Money_User

poet123 wrote: »

With respect, you cannot judge that without knowing more of the facts. Your posts come across as being written by someone who has or has had, issues with edcuational providers, and so your views are being coloured by that.

Yes but Flyboy is an expert in everything, his current speciality being in different shades of red!

squeaky

Hi all,

The topic at hand is Nursery T&C's, not teaching standards. If you want to discuss the further take to The Arms, or Discussion Time, or The Dog & Duck.

Forum_Team wrote:

GOING OFF-TOPIC

Hi, Martin’s asked me to post this in these circumstances: While it’s easy to wander off-topic that often prevents newbies finding the information they want quickly and easily (please see this rule). Please keep this thread on topic. If you’d like to discuss non-MoneySaving related topics please continue your discussion in The MoneySavers Arms or Discussion Time. If you have any questions about this policy please email [EMAIL='forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com']forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL].

.

Flyboy152

flimsier wrote: »

How many incompetent headteachers have you directly worked with to the extent that you've been able to see them "wind parents up"?

I've worked directly with 9 (in the same school) and indirectly with dozens. I know of one incompetent head, and he didn't wind parents up. Well he did, but that's because he was incompetent rather than his attitude to them directly, and he was removed from his post after 18 months in charge.

At least four in the last seven years (and as a parent, another two). All them were capable of doing as I have described. One, who was under investigation for fraud, was so adept at this tactic, she had many other staff members, governors and even some parents, "trained" in the same skill (we called this the "inner circle").

Your default position seems to be that those in charge of educational establishments set out to wind parents up, which is nonsensical on every level, including if you consider possible motive, opportunity, and experience.

Only the ones who need to use such behaviour as a smoke screen for their own failings. I have worked with a great number of excellent headteachers, all of whom took the time to consider the views, needs and sensitivities of all parents, no matter what the circumstances.

edit: Now I've re-read that it seems like I don't believe you - that's not the impression I want to give; I have no reason not to accept what people say - I'm trying to compare our experiences! If yours is from one educational establishment, or one person, I can understand your perspective but think it's wrong to assume it's a default position.

I think a good indication of a headteacher's ability to engage with parents or not, is reflected in the way they communicate with them. Writing such things in an e-mail is not a good start. Which leads me to err on the side of the parent in this case. I know of many Children's Services officers who will blindly accept the word of a headteacher without even bothering to investigate the claims of the parent.

Flyboy152

poet123 wrote: »

And incompetent Heads are commonplace are they?

Not in my experience, and few, if any, Heads I have ever met would set out to wind parents up. It is counter productive, time consuming and unnecessary.

The one incompetent head I have known did exasperate parents by his stance of being "all things to all men" and never saying what he really meant. He was eventually removed as his style was not compatible with the requirements of the school. He had, in business parlance, been promoted beyond his capacity.

That is not what I am saying, is never productive to include an ad hominem argument to any debate.

poet123

Flyboy152 wrote: »

That is not what I am saying, is never productive to include an ad hominem argument to any debate.

The figures you quote would suggest it is commonplace, or that you have been very unlucky.;)

Again, it very much depends on what benchmark you are using to make the judgement, who is making that call, and what their motives are.

poet123

Anyway, to get back OT we cannot judge of the OP was harshly treated or unfairly referred to in the email unless we have sight of the original complaint.

meer53

My comment was just to put my view that i feel the OP is spitting his dummy out because he had a bit of an argument with the Nursery concerned after saying a few things in the heat of the moment ! They must have signed the contract when they registered their child, how come they didn't say anything about the terms of the contract at the time ? You sign it, you accept it. You don't accept it, you don't sign it and arrange other childcare, but you'll struggle to find a nursery with different terms. Saying they want to go to the media about it is a bit immature really.

To add, no-one has said anything about an email ? Maybe this confrontation was face to face ?

Flyboy152

meer53 wrote: »

My comment was just to put my view that i feel the OP is spitting his dummy out because he had a bit of an argument with the Nursery concerned after saying a few things in the heat of the moment ! They must have signed the contract when they registered their child, how come they didn't say anything about the terms of the contract at the time ? You sign it, you accept it. You don't accept it, you don't sign it and arrange other childcare, but you'll struggle to find a nursery with different terms. Saying they want to go to the media about it is a bit immature really.

Without knowing the exact terms and conditions of this particular contract, just because an agreement contains a specific condition, it does not mean that is automatically legally enforcable.