Child being 'punished' for a choice I made

Lifeisbutadream

fedupnow wrote: »

Yes, possibly. But that isn't what the thread was originally about.

I agree it does seem odd if a person selects a school on the basis they have their own pool, then one would expect swimming to be a priority and winning a 'must do' and keen teachers etc.

Running a school and it's budget must be pretty tough, I reckon. Particularly with parents who want certain subjects or sports to take higher priority than others. If there were a vote, I wouldn't mind betting the majority of parents would want more spent on Maths or English studies rather than a better swimming teacher.

The swimming pool is not owned and run by the school, it is a voluntary committee. It nearly shut down a few months ago because of lack of funds, but the committee fought to keep it going, which is great, but just seems like such a waste !

I most certainly dont mind paying for lessons if the lessons were worthwhile and I dont think many would have an issue with it because th emoney is not coming from the same budget as Maths or English.

Dunroamin

fedupnow wrote: »

Yes, possibly. But that isn't what the thread was originally about.

I agree it does seem odd if a person selects a school on the basis they have their own pool, then one would expect swimming to be a priority and winning a 'must do' and keen teachers etc.

Running a school and it's budget must be pretty tough, I reckon. Particularly with parents who want certain subjects or sports to take higher priority than others. If there were a vote, I wouldn't mind betting the majority of parents would want more spent on Maths or English studies rather than a better swimming teacher.

There's no reason why a good swimming teacher should cost any more than a poor one.

Quite honestly, I'm amazed that the school would allow someone who taught a sport or a performance subject not to attend any out of school activity the team, choir or group were involved in. It's very unprofessional and sends out completely the wrong message.

ETA

Obviously it is possible to get a cheap teacher. Peanuts and monkeys comes to mind!

Dunroamin

FBaby wrote: »

I think if this thread is representative of so much grief for so many parents, schools should just not bother with the galas. If parents want their kids to be competitive rather than just learning a life saving skill, they can stick to clubs and leave the schools to do what they are meant to do, teach skills.

Surely being competitive is a pretty important skill to teach?

Lifeisbutadream

Dunroamin wrote: »

Surely being competitive is a pretty important skill to teach?

Unfortunately not to some its a shame really because children who are not brought up to be competive may lack the drive to 'be the best' (not just at sport!) IMO its one of the most important life skills, in the same vein children will also learn about how to lose gracefully !

I actually hate the term 'its not about the winning its about the taking part' - er no it isnt, its about trying to win!

Lifeisbutadream

Dunroamin wrote: »

There's no reason why a good swimming teacher should cost any more than a poor one.

Quite honestly, I'm amazed that the school would allow someone who taught a sport or a performance subject not to attend any out of school activity the team, choir or group were involved in. It's very unprofessional and sends out completely the wrong message.

ETA

Obviously it is possible to get a cheap teacher. Peanuts and monkeys comes to mind!

He was £1 an hour cheaper than another, highly recommended teacher when they took him on.

He only works a few hours a week and he is self employed, so they have no ties to him.

He doesnt even remember the kids names, so TBH how he would ever know what their skills were is beyond me if he cant differentiate between them!

Dunroamin

jem16 wrote: »

Your last sentence unfortunately typifies the misunderstanding of most parents as to what the teaching of reading is all about. The actual reading of words is only a very small part of the teaching of reading. The majority is about teaching comprehension, prediction, inferential and lower/higher order skills. Some of these skills are only acquired on reaching a certain maturity level but all would never be acquired by simply pointing the child in the direction of the library and telling him/her to get on with it..

There are fashions in the teaching of reading.

When I did some teacher training at the end of the 60s, our main guidance in the teaching of reading was "put a child in the environment where there are books and she'll learn to read". Whereas this attitude lowered reading standards for a generation, I can think of no more efficient way of stultifying a child's love of books than the method you describe above.

My husband and I both started school being able to read, were given the key to the library cupboard and encouraged to read as widely as possible. We were both also encouraged to read with younger children who were struggling to learn.

We both ended up with degrees in English and a lifelong love of books that has never diminished.

fedupnow

Lifeisbutadream wrote: »

The swimming pool is not owned and run by the school, it is a voluntary committee. It nearly shut down a few months ago because of lack of funds, but the committee fought to keep it going, which is great, but just seems like such a waste !

I most certainly dont mind paying for lessons if the lessons were worthwhile and I dont think many would have an issue with it because th emoney is not coming from the same budget as Maths or English.

Oh, I see. That's clearer.

You already left the fund raising committee as you felt frustrated with the way the said funds were allocated.

But it does explain to me why they felt you, given your history with the committee, might appreciate a phone call to explain why your son wasn't selected to represent the school.

I suppose unless you want to continue fighting to have the funds spent in a way you think benefits the school and its pupils the most, letting it go is the wisest decision. You could probably do without the stress of it all anyway.

But, going back to the original point, I genuinely believe he hasn't been selected because he doesn't take part in the lessons. That is quite normal practice no matter which school or how it is funded. Don't attend lessons/training you don't get in - end of.

The only way I can see he is being excluded because of your decision making, is if all those other kids who have pulled out of lessons are included in the gala regardless.

Then you'd be justified in going in and asking why he has been singled out.

FBaby

Dunroamin wrote: »

Surely being competitive is a pretty important skill to teach?

it's not often we disagree, but on this one, no, I don't think that a skill that should be tought at school, and that's from me who is naturally pretty competitive. As I said, I think school should limit itself to good teaching of knowledge and skills. Values should be tought by parents. Not everyone agrees on the value of competition and it shouldn't be imposed in places where kids have no other choice but to go to.

Clubs are compulsary and parents/children can pick those who are in line with their value (ie. level of competition).

My kids are naturally both competitive, but I also want them to learn to appreciate things for what they are. So whereas my DS9 is showing great skills at tennis, he is certainly not shining at football, yet he enjoys both, football probably most. He does more training in football, and that's fine. I'm pleased that he is also showing an real interest in doing something he is not good at, especially as he is actually showing improvements. Football is great to learn about discipline and working within a team. It doesn't matter that he has limited chance at either taking it forward.

FBaby

Lifeisbutadream wrote: »

Unfortunately not to some its a shame really because children who are not brought up to be competive may lack the drive to 'be the best' (not just at sport!) IMO its one of the most important life skills, in the same vein children will also learn about how to lose gracefully !

I actually hate the term 'its not about the winning its about the taking part' - er no it isnt, its about trying to win!

You are seeming to show no lack of teaching this to your children at home, so I'm not sure why you are worried.

Although I do agree that aiming to win is important, many fail to learn that it isn't important at all costs, and it is often those who fail to achieve in the end because they focus on the end rather than the mean.

Dunroamin

FBaby wrote: »

it's not often we disagree, but on this one, no, I don't think that a skill that should be tought at school, and that's from me who is naturally pretty competitive. As I said, I think school should limit itself to good teaching of knowledge and skills. Values should be tought by parents. Not everyone agrees on the value of competition and it shouldn't be imposed in places where kids have no other choice but to go to.
.

Unfortunately, not all children have supportive parents who teach values of any sort. These are the children who will lose out when they're older because nobody's ever helped them to understand that it will be the best person who gets the job, the college place or the apprenticeship. Too often these are the young people who think that they'll be handed things "just because"....

I think that children can be taught the value of competition without thinking that this gives them the right to trample over others in their desire to succeed.