General Chat

:-D Janet.

I also fail to see why I should pay, from my council tax, for a prank performed more than once by a moron!

As has been said, it's up to the parents to teach their children how to behave, not the school.

Statistically, (according to the media) I, as a child who moved a lot and lived in a caravan, (therefore pigeon-holed as from a 'travelling' family) and as an adult, a single parent, my children should have been badly behaved, have difficulty reading and been a strain on resources.
In reality, in primary school, both I and my children, were way above the rest of the class in reading (even the dyslexic child) and never caused a problem. Each of my children 'mentored' a problem child

However, in secondary school, the dyslexic child was picked on by a certain teacher, as she wasn't 'statemented', he thought it was okay to deride her for her handwriting, and the other one couldn't stand how another teacher picked on another child in her class.
But none of us ever chose to set off alarms, bully other children or cause a problem.

This is called upbringing, and respect. Not too difficult to teach to your child in the early years, neither is the other fundamental aspect of life - empathy.

"Young girls seam to grow so quickly,"
Obviously a poem about school as there is a spelling mistake.


All proven hoax calls should be charged-jl

Sue the pants off the parents - while the Fire Brigade are off on a wild goose chase to their little darlings' school - someone in genuine need of the Fire Service could be dying.....

No sympathy was so ever....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKGaidTQcB8&playnext=1&list=PLaq5NUMYfpA069U5iFlM5llgEoXz-7SuG&feature=results_main


"Goodnight Miss Johnson", calls the janitor,
Finishing his nightly rounds.
Continuing to clean the blackboard,
She answers without looking round.
And it's far too easy to erase
The hard planned lessons of another day.

And then she carefully packs her briefcase,
And blows the chalk dust from her hands.
Winds up the windows and feeds the fishes.
But forgets about the plants.
Oh, all the biology class,
And the questions that the young girls ask.

And they're all whispering in the playground,
Young girls talking 'round in groups.
And those words scrawled on the blackboard,
Could they really be the truth.
And no one asked the reason why
Something in assembly made Miss Johnson cry.

Young girls seam to grow so quickly,
And proves she's slowly growing old.
How could they hope to understand it,
Even if they could be taught.
Oh no more than a name hanging in the hall,
On a dusty roll of honour, unread on the wall.

Chalk dust settles everywhere,
Dries up her voice, whitens her hair.
Finding, filling every place.
But for punishment the hundred lines upon her face.

There is chalk dust in the letters,
That she slips beneath the doors.
There is chalk dust, there are letters
All along the corridors.
And all the lessons she's erased
Are chalk dust falling in the rays of sunset
Through the window pane.

Stray


it might depend on what the fire brigade is charging, or threatening to charge, the school ..........

............... in other words, cost recovery.


it might also include an increased "alarm fee" as a result of more than a certian number of false alarms.

i agree the parents should pay up, but 1800 is a little excessive i think

I wasn't criticising, Rollo, just trying not to look like Ronnie Corbett answering the question before last.

I think you must live in an area where education is very dull and routine. Despite the attempts by successive governments to destroy creativity in teaching by shackling us to the National Curriculum some state schools do manage to teach creatively. As I said, my son's school was such a one.

I only edited my post because I grew up playing rugby union whereas in Manchester the code was of course rugby league. The difference between the two is important in the context of this thread.

Fwiw I do not believe that what passes for an education system in this country, private or public, is fit for purpose supposing that the objective is to produce people who can think.

The basic premise of a series of little boxes with 30 odd children incarcerated in a big box called a school where they learn by rote whatever is the fashion of the day is unnatural and unjust sometimes stressing both children and teachers beyond endurance. That it takes 13 years to achieve a very ordinary standard of maths, mostly total illiteracy in foreign languages says a lot. Most people who get anywhere learn their life changing skills a long way from any school.

There are alternatives,
http://www.ibstockplaceschool.co.uk/Pre-Prep

I've deleted my response and pasted it here because I seemed to be replying before you posted, because you edited your post.

"In a word the magic is engagement."

We are in complete agreement about that.

I spent part of my teaching career working with children with "challenging behaviour" and that was my watchword. I've seen a lot of engagement in state schools as well, certainly in the comp my son went to. Wonderful place. Excellent teachers.

Many moons ago I taught mathematics at a very working class boy's school in Manchester. It was after ROSLA and many of the boys did not see why they should be there and most had better things to do than learn maths. Low level violence, intimidation, vandalism, petty theft, racism etc were endemic.

I was more than a bit surprise to be advised that the key thing was to finish the day in one piece and let life take its course - they were all destined for UB40 or jail or both anyway. So much for the NUT.

The school also played rugby league and outside of maths my other job was rugby coaching ( lots of unpaid work on top of marking, lesson prep etc. ) Most of the boys loved letting off steam on the park. Exclusion was a meaningful threat. So was the rolling maul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h1nUneO3zA

Back at the classroom I simply translated the syllabus into something meaninfull rather than the abstract. For instance stats and probability will bore most children to tears. Working class boys pay close attention when they learn how to construct a "book" for horse racing and how odds work.

In a word the magic is engagement. That is what the fee paying schools offer and that is what far too many state schools shy away from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLsDxvAErTU

That makes even less sense than your last post.

So you have no solution - just criticism.

I am not concerned with wild colonial boys Van Diemen's land nor South Hobbitshire.

For instance AFAIK North Hobbitshire is moving towards a written constitution enforced by the Elves with Gandalf at its head. The changes are at the behest of the dwarves who feel that they do all the work out of sight in their caves.

If enacted, as is likely then the laws of Hobbitshire will be even further away from those of the old country or Van Diemen's Land then they are already.

So, in a word, don't compare apples with oranges, they are not the only fruit.

So what should teachers do, Rollo? Follow known trouble makers around the school? Tie them to their chairs?

The current education minister says a lot of things and then has to back-track, he doesn't seem to have much of a clue, frankly.

Teachers do see and get to know children at lunchtime. Quite often we run extra sessions for children who are struggling and have revision lessons in preparation for exams. A much better use of our time than lunchtime supervision although we also do that in smaller schools, on a voluntary basis.

I'm not sure where you got this from -

"The argument that unreasonable children have unreasonable parents and that it is therefore reasonable for people acting i.l.p. to behave in the same way as rhe actual parents is fatuous."

It's certainly not what I said.

I cannot understand what you mean by this-

"and last but by no means least as unreasonable people always get started their, school students." And I'm also a bit confused by the Mikado reference.

What is your solution, Rollo? Tell me how we ensure every child behaves properly every hour of every school day.

Education ministers don't know what they're talking about 99% of the time.

Teachers are quite capable of getting to know pupils in lessons, at lunch they need to eat.

As a parent as far as I'm concerned it's the responsibility of the parents to teach their children how to behave, not the teacher's. Teachers are there to educate. If they wish to raise children they'll have their own.

The position of the UK teaching unions on a raft of things is well known. That they all agree with each other does not mean they are right e.g. going on strike.

The piece from the TES that you cite mentions the Children's ACt of 1989. It has been superceded by this:
Parental responsibility
Having parental responsibility means assuming all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority that a parent of a child has by law.
Section 576 of the Education Act 1996
note: "All"

Regarding the particular problem of serious damage to movable property, hoax 999 calls and such this sort of problem rarely comes out of the blue and the children most likely to offend in this way are well known. Any reasonable parent would then take special care to check on what they are up to and so should teaching staff. It is no use falling back and what reasonable people and reasonable children would do.

The argument that unreasonable children have unreasonable parents and that it is therefore reasonable for people acting i.l.p. to behave in the same way as rhe actual parents is fatuous.

The law is for the most part concerned with what unreasonable people may get up to whether they be speeding MPs, merchant bankers, butchers, NHS staff, solicitors, DJs, policemen and their blogs and last but by no means least as unreasonable people always get started there, school students.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-_m6EZ1SUk

Teaching staff should not consider that their duties begin and end with dishing out lessons and indeed the Education Minister has said as much.

Although teachers no longer supervise at lunch time ( a mistake in my view as it was a golden opportunity to get to know children ) the responsibility of the school for any tort remains.

Here in Nz the fire brigade charges institutions for false alarm call out.
The toaster was removed from our maternity ward years ago for that reason as it was an expensive venture for a couple of bits of burnt toast.
The same would go for the deliberate activation of a fire alarm in school .
We also pay for the ambulance here it is mostly a volunteer service
Most of us pay for membership on a yearly basis which covers callouts

You my have posted the reference, Rollo, but that's not how it works in practice and neither should it.

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=370916

Members of the public should understand that a teacher's job is to educate children not be their jailers. It is the parents' job to prepare a child for school and to ensure they understand what is acceptable behaviour. They have had 5 years to do it before the children get to school and most manage very well.

All studies show that home has far more influence on children's behaviour and the adults they become than school does.

It's beyond me why you think that the parents of children should not pay for the damage they cause. Schools struggle enough with inadequate funding without adding to their burden.

In locus parentis means what it says on the tin, there are no limitations as to being "reasonable" and so on and so forth. Why you should think so is beyond me. I have already posted the reference in the Children's Act.

Suppose a child of 14 got mad at a teacher and went into the school parking lot and smashed up a half dozen cars or so with a cricket bat before being restrained. Obviously "unreasonable".

According to you the car owners would expect the child's parents to shell out. Not at all, the controlling persons at the time were the school staff. Thus the civil law liability for the damage would be with the school, not with the parents. Even if the car owners chose to claim on their insurance the insurers could claim in turn against the school.

Of course the criminal responsibility remains with the young person.

All of this is perfectly consistent with the rest of English civil law which has always held employers of any stripe, prisons and hospitals etc responsible for the torts committed by their employees and servants while in their service.

Why should schools be any different?

School teachers should understand that the job involves a great deal more than attempting to induct the basics of English grammar and math or the indoctrination of global warming. To use a Victorian dictum "don't care was made to care". That can apply as much to school staff as rowdy young people.

It is at school that young people spend most of their waking time and it is at school where a young person's life will be made for better or for worse. That is why those parents who can go to so much trouble on the matter.

Rollo, I did say it's likely that the parents will refuse to pay but most reasonable parents do.

I'm surprised that you were able to force the school to pay for damage caused by other children. In the past I've claimed on our household insurance for damage caused in school.

I think it's totally unreasonable to expect teachers to watch every child all the time. And lococ parentis only requires teachers to behave as reasonable parents would, not jailers.