Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

There are no words



Green Cross Code Man

Wunt be druv
Mar 30, 2006
19,592
Eastbourne
I work in a primary school and if that happened there would have been an uproar. Something is seriously wrong with their management team.
 

Hyperion

New member
Nov 1, 2010
5,314
Just incredible. Seems like the schools board need a bloody education more than the kids
 


Mowgli37

Enigmatic Asthmatic
Jan 13, 2013
6,371
Sheffield
Shocking idiocy from the school. Does anyone there possess any common sense?
 

Goldstone1976

We Got Calde in!!
Helpful Moderator
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Apr 30, 2013
13,754
Herts
What an absolute PR disaster.

I can't believe they have scrapped the incentive going forward, rather than just apply some common sense. Idiotic.

It's a total PR disaster, but I can absolutely understand why they've scrapped the scheme going forward. When designing incentive schemes, clarity and fairness are absolutely essential; without those two things you're asking for permanent binfests. The only way this scheme could have been totally clear was to have said "100% attendance - no excuses", which is presumably what they had.

Anything other than that, you either have to create a list of "acceptable" excuses, where you just know that you'll forget one exemption that should have been included in the list and, due to sod's law, a case with that should-have-been exemption will come up; or you have to say "100% attendance unless the Head deems it appropriate to provide an exemption", which leaves it open for all sorts of parents to claim an exemption for their kid. "Timmy's pet rabbit died - he was very upset - it was only half a day. Surely that counts as an exemption?" Not only does it then come down to personal judgement about what should count as an excuse and what shouldn't, but the Head then has to consider a myriad of cases each term and then take the time to explain to loads of unhappy parents why their case doesn't qualify for an exemption, when they should be teaching/running the school.

No, I can easily see why they've cancelled the scheme.

Where they went wrong, imo, was in introducing the scheme in the first place. While it's perfectly obvious that they would like all the kids to attend 100% of the time, and it's laudable that they tried to do something to encourage it, it was entirely predictable that something like this case would happen - the law of unintended consequences was utterly inevitable.

What wasn't predictable was how public the failing of their system would prove to be; for that, we presumably have the dad to blame. Shame on him, if so. I can understand his anger at his daughter not going on the trip, but to go to the press? Really?
 


spring hall convert

Well-known member
Nov 3, 2009
9,608
Brighton
It's a total PR disaster, but I can absolutely understand why they've scrapped the scheme going forward. When designing incentive schemes, clarity and fairness are absolutely essential; without those two things you're asking for permanent binfests. The only way this scheme could have been totally clear was to have said "100% attendance - no excuses", which is presumably what they had.

Anything other than that, you either have to create a list of "acceptable" excuses, where you just know that you'll forget one exemption that should have been included in the list and, due to sod's law, a case with that should-have-been exemption will come up; or you have to say "100% attendance unless the Head deems it appropriate to provide an exemption", which leaves it open for all sorts of parents to claim an exemption for their kid. "Timmy's pet rabbit died - he was very upset - it was only half a day. Surely that counts as an exemption?" Not only does it then come down to personal judgement about what should count as an excuse and what shouldn't, but the Head then has to consider a myriad of cases each term and then take the time to explain to loads of unhappy parents why their case doesn't qualify for an exemption, when they should be teaching/running the school.

No, I can easily see why they've cancelled the scheme.

Where they went wrong, imo, was in introducing the scheme in the first place. While it's perfectly obvious that they would like all the kids to attend 100% of the time, and it's laudable that they tried to do something to encourage it, it was entirely predictable that something like this case would happen - the law of unintended consequences was utterly inevitable.

What wasn't predictable was how public the failing of their system would prove to be; for that, we presumably have the dad to blame. Shame on him, if so. I can understand his anger at his daughter not going on the trip, but to go to the press? Really?

I understand your point but I don't really think the school would have caused outrage amongst the other parents if they allowed her to go and informed people why.
 

Goldstone1976

We Got Calde in!!
Helpful Moderator
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Apr 30, 2013
13,754
Herts
I understand your point but I don't really think the school would have caused outrage amongst the other parents if they allowed her to go and informed people why.

I was expecting a flaming, so thanks for seeing the point! I'd agree with your rebuttal if we can believe that all parents of primary school kids are rational beings with decent levels of empathy. But we know that regrettably, sometimes they're not.

However, to be clear - I do believe that the school should have let the girl go and tough it out with any parents who disagreed with the decision.

I do still think that given the fallout, cancelling the scheme for future terms was understandable. I'd prefer them to focus instead on tackling the question "How can we make school so interesting and fun that our kids WANT to attend?", rather than "How can we bribe our kids to attend?"...
 


Wilko

LUZZING chairs about
Sep 19, 2003
9,921
BN1
I was expecting a flaming, so thanks for seeing the point! I'd agree with your rebuttal if we can believe that all parents of primary school kids are rational beings with decent levels of empathy. But we know that regrettably, sometimes they're not.

However, to be clear - I do believe that the school should have let the girl go and tough it out with any parents who disagreed with the decision.

I do still think that given the fallout, cancelling the scheme for future terms was understandable. I'd prefer them to focus instead on tackling the question "How can we make school so interesting and fun that our kids WANT to attend?", rather than "How can we bribe our kids to attend?"...

That is the point though isn't it, I cannot imagine a single parent complaining about the decision to let her go. If anything I think fellow parents would back and commend a girl that only had one day off following the death of her mother. Staggering decision by the school.
 


Thunder Bolt

Ordinary Supporter
That is the point though isn't it, I cannot imagine a single parent complaining about the decision to let her go. If anything I think fellow parents would back and commend a girl that only had one day off following the death of her mother. Staggering decision by the school.

I agree 100%.
 

Goldstone1976

We Got Calde in!!
Helpful Moderator
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Apr 30, 2013
13,754
Herts
That is the point though isn't it, I cannot imagine a single parent complaining about the decision to let her go. If anything I think fellow parents would back and commend a girl that only had one day off following the death of her mother. Staggering decision by the school.

I agree 100%.

Well, as I've said already, you'd hope so. However, it does require not only all the parents at the school to behave rationally, it also presupposes that none of them have a beef with the school about something else and have been looking for a stick to beat them with. I'm not as convinced as you both are that not one single parent would have complained.

I do still think the school should have let her go; but I also think they would have had some fallout from doing so.
 

nwgull

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2003
13,632
Manchester
I was expecting a flaming, so thanks for seeing the point! I'd agree with your rebuttal if we can believe that all parents of primary school kids are rational beings with decent levels of empathy. But we know that regrettably, sometimes they're not.

However, to be clear - I do believe that the school should have let the girl go and tough it out with any parents who disagreed with the decision.

I do still think that given the fallout, cancelling the scheme for future terms was understandable. I'd prefer them to focus instead on tackling the question "How can we make school so interesting and fun that our kids WANT to attend?", rather than "How can we bribe our kids to attend?"...

Speaking from the experience of my missis being a primary head, your first paragraph is spot on.

Rules such as not allowing kids the odd day or two off in term time aren't there to punish Mr and Mrs Nice who support their kids' education but have valid reason to take their kids out of school; they're their to protect the kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, whose parents really don't care if their kids go to school or not.
 


Titanic

Super Moderator
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
38,975
West Sussex
...Rules such as not allowing kids the odd day or two off in term time aren't there to punish Mr and Mrs Nice who support their kids' education but have valid reason to take their kids out of school; they're their to protect the kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, whose parents really don't care if their kids go to school or not.

So why penalise and stigmatise these already deprived kids by excluding them from an outing?
 

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills


Top
Link Here