GingerBeerMan
3-0
- Dec 29, 2011
- 8,123
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?
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'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?"...
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.
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%.
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?"...
Just incredible. Seems like the schools board need a bloody education more than the kids
...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.