There are no words

[ilduc944]

Actually there are plenty and varied words to describe this act of insensitivity - the mods would probably kick most of them off the thread though so I'll make do with 'disgusting' and 'outrageous'. I'd use 'unbelievable' as well but there's not alot around that actually is, certainly not this!

 

[fat old seagull]

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?

It needs more publicity than going to press, I'd like to see this on the tv. It's bloody lunacy. If there's enough bad publicity school boards and heads might engage their brains before coming to such heartless decisions.

 

[stss30]

I can't believe anyone is trying to defend the school's quite ridiculous decision. I appreciate that the rules should be the same for every student but perhaps use a bit of common sense. She missed ONE day attending her Mother's funeral, staggering incompetence.

 

[drew]

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?

Your probably right that a scheme like this is highly likely to cause problems. Would've been interesting to know how may kids actually attained the 100% record! The idea of rewarding children with 100% surely also penalises those children with chronic health problems who attend as often as they are physically able to. Another case is equally, if not more, appalling.

http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/...oy-s-holiday/story-21665751-detail/story.html

You have to assume that the headteachers in both cases were included in the 70 that co-signed a letter stating their disappointment that Gove has gone!!!!

 

[keaton]

Actually there are plenty and varied words to describe this act of insensitivity - the mods would probably kick most of them off the thread though so I'll make do with 'disgusting' and 'outrageous'. I'd use 'unbelievable' as well but there's not alot around that actually is, certainly not this!

How sensitive or otherwise was it for her Dad to contact the press and get is splashed all over the papers?

 

[keaton]

You have to assume that the headteachers in both cases were included in the 70 that co-signed a letter stating their disappointment that Gove has gone!!!!

Why? Statistically you'd have to assume not

 

[Notters]

It was a bloody stupid scheme in the first place. Completely unfair to anyone who was sick during that period. Do they want people coming to school if they have a horrible illness to spread it around?

 

[Mackenzie]

How sensitive or otherwise was it for her Dad to contact the press and get is splashed all over the papers?

You can understand his anger though surely?

 

[Mellotron]

What an absolute PR disaster.

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

Agreed - how childish and daft to remove the incentive, completely missing the point (again).

 

[nwgull]

Your probably right that a scheme like this is highly likely to cause problems. Would've been interesting to know how may kids actually attained the 100% record! The idea of rewarding children with 100% surely also penalises those children with chronic health problems who attend as often as they are physically able to. Another case is equally, if not more, appalling.

This is probably the reason why they didn't make an exception. It's not the fault of any kid that they get ill, so if they made an exception, they'd then have to allow every kid who had a genuine illness and reason for not being at school one day to come. But the problem is: how do you then differentiate between these kids, and the kids whose parents aren't really bothered and let them stay off school just because they sneezed at breakfast.

Not saying that the right decision was made, but I can see the rational behind their decision to not make exceptions.

 

[keaton]

You can understand his anger though surely?

Yes, but that doesn't mean he's made his daughter's life easier. For the sake of a free meal, everyone knows his daughter's personal life and issues which doesn't seem like great parenting.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mother-faces-fine-taking-blind-3890099#.U8zqMTF8dCU.twitter

This mother faces a fine for taking her terminally ill son on a holiday.

Everyone knows kids should get an education but whatever happened to common sense?

 

[sydney]

this thread has wound me right up ...i will not be looking at it any more....there are some complete idiots about ...!!

 

[The Camel]

Must be more to this story than been published in the Mirror.

Impossible anyone with an ounce of empathy could be this insensitive.

 

[nwgull]

Must be more to this story than been published in the Mirror.

Impossible anyone with an ounce of empathy could be this insensitive.

True. There are always 2 sides to every story, with the actual scenario being somewhere in the middle.

 

[Mackenzie]

Yes, but that doesn't mean he's made his daughter's life easier. For the sake of a free meal, everyone knows his daughter's personal life and issues which doesn't seem like great parenting.

True, but sometimes reason goes out the window when emotion is involved. He's tried to keep the routine normal as possible for his daughter despite just losing his wife, which doesn't suggest to me that his parenting is poor. Was the meal free? No, I don't blame him (or one of the other parents/his friends) for highlighting this.