Stuck in a dilemma

iammumtoone

FBaby wrote: »

So does this mean that if the item had been allowed in the school, then it should be paid back. So if the child had come with a £100 coat (silly but allowed) and to annoy the boy, OP's son hid it in a bin and before he could retrieve it, the bin men had taken it, then she should pay?

But because the game is not allowed, then she shouldn't?

Surely the issue here is that her son acted badly and should take responsibility for his actions. Because he is a minor, his parents take the responsibility on his behalf?

I wouldn't think twice debating such a situation if it was my kids who had acted badly. Things like this happen, but I would certainly want them to learn their lesson about responsibility for one own actions by showing them a good example.

It's no surprise kids are growing with the attitude of always trying to defend their actions by putting the responsibility on others if that's what their parents are doing themselves.

But you could turn that around and say the other child should be allowed to break the rules, it doesn't matter as if anything gets broken due to that, not to worry he will get another one.

You could says its no surprise that children/parents break the rules set as if anything happens due to them breaking said rule there are no consequences.

I don't think anyone is arguing the OPs child did wrong, but no one seems to be understanding so did the other child. as I have said before 50/50 seems fair, they both learn their lesson this way.

And no I don't think she should pay for a £100 replacement coat in that situation but should pay the full amount for a replacement decent coat, as you say nobody would sent a child to school in a £100 coat but it seems perfectly acceptable to send them in with a device worth more than that.

warehouse

The lad broke the DS so you buy a replacement. There is absolutely no dilemma here, and you do it tomorrow not at your convenience.

Where is the lesson being learned by your son here? I see nothing.

Person_one

jackyann wrote: »

pphilips mentions 'a reasonable child'. It seems to me that one of the huge issues here is that this is a child with special needs.
We don't know the exact condition / diagnosis, but as he attends a special school, a 'reasonable person' would expect that he might not understand about potential damage, be able to control his temper or many other things. This really is very different to a mainstream school or a normal child.

I think that the ban on such items is reasonable, I also think that proper supervision for a distressed child is reasonable. Indeed, I have considerable experience of special schools, and it is unusual for the children not to be supervised at all times.

That does not mean that OP's son should not accept some consequences for his actions - but they must be suitable for his understanding. If I can again draw the comparison with a 2 year old - you wouldn't dock the pocket money of a 2 year old because it wouldn't mean anything to them, you choose a 'consequence' that enables learning.

When I talk about taking responsibility, I do expect the parent does that, and then deals with the child as they feel appropriate according to their level of understanding. The other child shouldn't be down a DS though however the parent broaches it with the responsible child.

Person_one

pphillips wrote: »

So it is your view that its okay to break school rules and you shouldn't have any repercussions because there not important and so you can bring into school whatever you like and expect other parents to pay out in full if it gets damaged by their child.

The repercussions of bringing a banned DS to school should be along the lines of having it confiscated, or a short detention, that kind of thing. Having it be destroyed by another child with no redress is not a proportionate punishment for a minor transgression!

iammumtoone

I am going to have to change my attitude here as it seems I am in the minority in how I think.

If my son took a ds into school and it got broken I would blame myself for letting him take it in the first place, more so if it was against the school rules.

I think I will start letting him take it, maybe along with his ipad as if it does get broken by another child it seems I can expect the other parents to pay for a replacement(s)

Once I start allowing my son to take things in I am sure others would follow once they realise there is no risk to losing out due to another childs actions, soon the school would have £1000s worth of electric goods on site. School rules are there for a reason.

theoretica

Even faulty consoles seem to be worth something, so it might be an idea arranging that any trade in or sale price of the broken one also goes towards the replacement.

pphillips

iammumtoone wrote: »

I am going to have to change my attitude here as it seems I am in the minority in how I think.

If my son took a ds into school and it got broken I would blame myself for letting him take it in the first place, more so if it was against the school rules.

I think I will start letting him take it, maybe along with his ipad as if it does get broken by another child it seems I can expect the other parents to pay for a replacement(s)

Once I start allowing my son to take things in I am sure others would follow once they realise there is no risk to losing out due to another childs actions, soon the school would have £1000s worth of electric goods on site. School rules are there for a reason.

I also seem to be in minority but I wouldn't change my views because of other post here.

If you do allow your children to take expensive items into school then you run the risk of them being damaged, you may not find out who caused the damage and if you do the other child's parents could refuse to pay up. In that case you have the expense and hassle of taking the other child or the school to court, a court case that you might not win.

oystercatcher

warehouse wrote: »

The lad broke the DS so you buy a replacement. There is absolutely no dilemma here, and you do it tomorrow not at your convenience.

Where is the lesson being learned by your son here? I see nothing.

I agree with this. Why should the child have to wait until after Christmas for his replacement. That will seem like forever .

I think OP's child needs to be taught the consequences of his actions and if he has any expensive devices or games then maybe something should be sold to make payment for the damage. Special needs or not he still needs to learn right from wrong and soon as well , if he just gets less Christmas presents that is in another three weeks by which time he may have forgotten the whole incident.

Person_one

iammumtoone wrote: »

not really as you are talking about an adult in that situation (if we were referring to adults I would agree with you) this instance refers to a child who has known learning difficulties so should not have been allowed to be put in a situation where this could occur in the first place. To be fair to the school it seems they did try to prevent instances like this by banning expensive items on school premises.

What if it were an adult with a learning disability that meant they were equally lacking in understanding as a child might be? Would you be fine with having your stuff destroyed or would you expect the parent/carer of the person to offer to pay to replace it?

pphillips

Person_one wrote: »

What if it were an adult with a learning disability that meant they were equally lacking in understanding as a child might be? Would you be fine with having your stuff destroyed or would you expect the parent/carer of the person to offer to pay to replace it?

Personally I would expect whoever had control of the child or adult with learning difficulties to offer to pay, but 'the person in control' depends on the circumstances and will not always be the parent/carer.