Stuck in a dilemma

Tigsteroonie

Have the teacher(s) confirmed that the 3ds was definitely in the bag? Else it's possible that the child broke it himself (it's an SEN school) and on learning that his bag had been kicked around, saw a handy get-out clause?

I'm probably thinking too hard about this.

Davesnave

maman wrote: »

If they have a system in place where children can go out into the corridor unsupervised then they have to take responsibility for what happens when children behave badly.

The school is quite right not to become involved with arguments over damage to expensive banned items. The main reason why they're banned is that this sort of thing happens, regardless of the type of school.

Sanctions for bad behaviour is a separate matter.

Believe it or not, children in all kinds of schools may move about the buildings unsupervised at age 11, not only to visit the toilet, but for many other reasons. Schools aren't prisons.

parking_question_chap

Davesnave wrote: »

The school is quite right not to become involved with arguments over damage to expensive banned items. The main reason why they're banned is that this sort of thing happens, regardless of the type of school.

Sanctions for bad behaviour is a separate matter.

Believe it or not, children in all kinds of schools may move about the buildings unsupervised at age 11, not only to visit the toilet, but for many other reasons. Schools aren't prisons.

Totally spot on!

Person_one

teddysmum wrote: »

I'm sure that the police can't punish you as your son is a minor, was not under your supervision...

The age of criminal responsibility is 10 in this country. Very little chance the police would waste time getting involved in something that can/should be easily sorted by the school and the parents, but worth knowing that a child of 11 can be considered in the eyes of the law to be just as responsible for any criminal acts they commit as an adult.

Clive_Woody

I would tell the parents of the other child that they need to claim on their household insurance policy, presumably they have cover for items away from home as they allow their child to take expensive electronic items to school despite it being against school rules.

Dird

silvercar wrote: »

They need to accept some responsibility for allowing their son to take an expensive bit of kit into school knowing it was banned. What if it had been an iPhone 7 rather than a ds3? would they have expected you to pay out £350?

Yes, the £350 or whatever. For all you know the kid left it in his bag all day at school & only put it in there as he was going straight to a friend's house after school to play 3ds together.

barbarawright wrote: »

If the kid who had the 3ds (what is a 3ds?) damaged has also had three pairs of glasses broken by other children, then it doesn't sound as clear-cut a case of *him* being the bully as you seem to think.

Surely it should be the bully breaking glasses, not the other way around. Think Nelson vs Millhouse

gt568

peachyprice wrote: »

Nice. not

Thank you. I certainly wouldn't be replacing anything. It shouldn't have been at the school.

jackyann

My 2 penn'orth:

The school should sanction your child for kicking someone else's property - they also need to consider their own policies & procedures as leaving a special needs child in a situation where he can get at others' property unsupervised is not good.

This item should not have been there. Your son should be punished for damaging other people's property, but not something that shouldn't have been in there. I am astonished that the other parents are taking the 'high ground' on this when they are clearly in the wrong.

Having said that, the solution you have proposed seems one that will deal with all the issues, but I do feel is rather sad for you. Only you know your son well enough to know what will help him understand & learn from this episode.

I would also speak to the Head / Governors about handling such situations in the future. I hope this doesn't spoil your Xmas.

duchy

It sounds like the school aren't going to get involved with any discussion about replacing a banned item and rightly so. It's down to the parents to ensure those items stay at home. Can't say I blame them but I do agree your son has a moral responsibility to put things right .

That said it seems a lot of things are getting damaged and special needs or not this clearly isn't acceptable and there are issues with supervising children , possibly with staff to student ratio.

FBaby

My child does not instigate, he does however react. ( All proven/wrote in his statement etc )

The problem is that this what every parent of every child that has got into a confrontation believes! My experience as a witness is that it is rarely a case of one child always doing the aggession and the other never ever starting it. A child who would only ever retaliate is usually a child who usually knows to walk away from the conflict in the first place.

Anyway, it sounds like you have accepted that your son is responsible, which is good, but on that basis, not clear why you think you should only pay half. You are either responsible and therefore pay for the damage to be restored, or you don't because you're not responsible.

The parent is being reasonable (and rightly so) but agreeing to replace by a used item, but of course you should pay for it all. The timing before Christmas is not great, but again, it sounds like they are being fair by agreeing to payment afterwards.

It sounds like this is putting you under financial constraint and therefore trying to justify why you should pay less.