Great School This Is.

[tommy.irene]

www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/huge-response-after-bedworth-pupil-7466614   

Huge response after pupil banned from end-of-term celebration for taking day off to go to mum's funeral

[tommy.irene]

www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/bedworth-school-excludes-pupil-end-of-year-7450507

[tommy.irene]

When the Telegraph contacted St Giles’ Junior School, a spokesperson said: “Following concerns raised, the rewarding of pupils for 100 per cent attendance has been withdrawn.”

1. Look: Bedworth school excludes pupil from end-of-year trip because she missed ONE day to go to mum's...
2. BedworthComic Jason Manford hits out after Bedworth school bans pupil from trip for attending mum's funeral
3. BedworthYour reactions: Support for Bedworth schoolgirl who was punished for attending her mum's funera
   l

[bankhaunter]

It's hard to believe the school did not have a plan where an absence was for such a reason.

And pretty stupid of them to stick so rigidly to the policy.

[lhasa.two]

There are a lot of stupid people about in positions of authority.

This country is bogged down by bureaucracy of an unprecedented level imo.

[023mjc]

Poor little girl. As if she hasn't suffered enough with the loss of her mum. I hope the  jobsworth who made this rule and blindly sticks to it without regard or compassion to circumstances, is proud of themselves.

[lambsy_uk]

As much as the media would like you to believe that the school horridly prevented a grief-stricken girl from going on a deserved jolly I'll guarantee the reporting of the circumstances leaves out many salient points.

They will have us believe that the school said to the poor girl "sorry but you cannot go on the trip because you took time off for your Mum's funeral". Well only an **bleep** would believe this is what happened. More likely and gaining from some detail I've read; the school notified all parents with pupils who had 100% attendance, of a trip as a reward. Attendance records were kept on file on computer. After the trip had taken place the girl or someone in her family asks why she had not been included, and the **bleep**-up is revealed and the rest is a media sensation.

I truly feel for the girl but don't believe all you read/hear!!!

[tommy.irene]

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

As much as the media would like you to believe that the school horridly prevented a grief-stricken girl from going on a deserved jolly I'll guarantee the reporting of the circumstances leaves out many salient points.

They will have us believe that the school said to the poor girl "sorry but you cannot go on the trip because you took time off for your Mum's funeral". Well only an **bleep** would believe this is what happened. More likely and gaining from some detail I've read; the school notified all parents with pupils who had 100% attendance, of a trip as a reward. Attendance records were kept on file on computer. After the trip had taken place the girl or someone in her family asks why she had not been included, and the **bleep**-up is revealed and the rest is a media sensation.

I truly feel for the girl but don't believe all you read/hear!!! 

---

Did you really read the post in the Paper which said..... When the Telegraph contacted St Giles’ Junior School, a spokesperson said: “Following concerns raised, the rewarding of pupils for 100 per cent attendance has been withdrawn.”

[tommy.irene]

www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/head-teacher-says-sorry-after-7474559

[lambsy_uk]

---

@tommy.irene wrote:

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

As much as the media would like you to believe that the school horridly prevented a grief-stricken girl from going on a deserved jolly I'll guarantee the reporting of the circumstances leaves out many salient points.

They will have us believe that the school said to the poor girl "sorry but you cannot go on the trip because you took time off for your Mum's funeral". Well only an **bleep** would believe this is what happened. More likely and gaining from some detail I've read; the school notified all parents with pupils who had 100% attendance, of a trip as a reward. Attendance records were kept on file on computer. After the trip had taken place the girl or someone in her family asks why she had not been included, and the **bleep**-up is revealed and the rest is a media sensation.

I truly feel for the girl but don't believe all you read/hear!!! 

---

Did you really read the post in the Paper which said..... When the Telegraph contacted St Giles’ Junior School, a spokesperson said: “Following concerns raised, the rewarding of pupils for 100 per cent attendance has been withdrawn.”

---

Yes I read it several days ago. The school were full of remorse for the mistake and wished they'd been given the opportunity to make amends before it got splashed everywhere. In light of concerns raised it felt it should not persuit such reward schemes in future. So is there a further point you are trying to make?

[tommy.irene]

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

---

@tommy.irene wrote:

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

As much as the media would like you to believe that the school horridly prevented a grief-stricken girl from going on a deserved jolly I'll guarantee the reporting of the circumstances leaves out many salient points.

They will have us believe that the school said to the poor girl "sorry but you cannot go on the trip because you took time off for your Mum's funeral". Well only an **bleep** would believe this is what happened. More likely and gaining from some detail I've read; the school notified all parents with pupils who had 100% attendance, of a trip as a reward. Attendance records were kept on file on computer. After the trip had taken place the girl or someone in her family asks why she had not been included, and the **bleep**-up is revealed and the rest is a media sensation.

I truly feel for the girl but don't believe all you read/hear!!! 

---

Did you really read the post in the Paper which said..... When the Telegraph contacted St Giles’ Junior School, a spokesperson said: “Following concerns raised, the rewarding of pupils for 100 per cent attendance has been withdrawn.”

---

Yes I read it several days ago. The school were full of remorse for the mistake and wished they'd been given the opportunity to make amends before it got splashed everywhere. In light of concerns raised it felt it should not persuit such reward schemes in future. So is there a further point you are trying to make?

---

My point is why take it out on the other children who were not at fault..By stopping it..

[bankhaunter]

My point is why take it out on the other children who were not at fault..By stopping it..

Probably because it has been brought home to them that it is simply not sustainable.

There will be many good justifiable reasons why a child may take a day off school but no way of judging which absences would not count and which would without an element of rough justice and thereby resentment appearing.

They are not taking it out on the other children, not being given something is not the same as having something taken away.

[lambsy_uk]

---

@bankhaunter wrote:

My point is why take it out on the other children who were not at fault..By stopping it..

Probably because it has been brought home to them that it is simply not sustainable.

There will be many good justifiable reasons why a child may take a day off school but no way of judging which absences would not count and which would without an element of rough justice and thereby resentment appearing.

They are not taking it out on the other children, not being given something is not the same as having something taken away.

---

Good enough answer for me, cheers Banky!

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@bankhaunter wrote:

My point is why take it out on the other children who were not at fault..By stopping it..

Probably because it has been brought home to them that it is simply not sustainable.

There will be many good justifiable reasons why a child may take a day off school but no way of judging which absences would not count and which would without an element of rough justice and thereby resentment appearing.

They are not taking it out on the other children, not being given something is not the same as having something taken away.

---

Of course there are many good and justifiable reasons why a child may take a day off school - there are also no doubt many more not so good reasons why children take time off school.

In this instance the school appears to have withdrawn a scheme that encourages good attendance records because on occasion it may not be 'fair' to all the pupils.

School prepares children for life and life isn't always fair - I feel for the young lady in this particular case but how has she, or any other pupil, who may be in a similar position gained from the scheme being withdrawn.  More importantly how many more pupils will lose out educationally due to the incentive being withdrawn. 

It strikes me that the scheme has been withdrawn to make life easier for the school not better for the pupils - is this the principle on which schools should be run?

[lambsy_uk]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

---

@bankhaunter wrote:

My point is why take it out on the other children who were not at fault..By stopping it..

Probably because it has been brought home to them that it is simply not sustainable.

There will be many good justifiable reasons why a child may take a day off school but no way of judging which absences would not count and which would without an element of rough justice and thereby resentment appearing.

They are not taking it out on the other children, not being given something is not the same as having something taken away.

---

Of course there are many good and justifiable reasons why a child may take a day off school - there are also no doubt many more not so good reasons why children take time off school.

In this instance the school appears to have withdrawn a scheme that encourages good attendance records because on occasion it may not be 'fair' to all the pupils.

School prepares children for life and life isn't always fair - I feel for the young lady in this particular case but how has she, or any other pupil, who may be in a similar position gained from the scheme being withdrawn.  More importantly how many more pupils will lose out educationally due to the incentive being withdrawn. 

It strikes me that the scheme has been withdrawn to make life easier for the school not better for the pupils - is this the principle on which schools should be run?

---

Surely 100% attendance at school should be the norm and not a target to achieve a special treat! Many pupils have impeccable attendance records that they are proud of; having nothing to do with incentive schemes!

I'd suggest good attendance should be expected rather than encouraged! Why would any pupil lose out educationally due to an incentive being withdrawn when all that's asked is that they achieve normal standards?! They may have gained nothing from this being withdrawn and some may feel they've missed out, but as you say "life isn't fair".

It strikes me that the scheme was imposed to make life-choices easier for parents and pupils and not better for the normal expected standards of the school! Are schools to be run on the principle that pupils should only turn up if they have a special incentive to do so?!!!

[bankhaunter]

Such a scheme would also seem to be discriminatory against pupils who have poor health since they are more likely to need time away from school.

I got the impression the treat was a reward and not an incentive and one would have thought that a reward for children would be awarded if they had done all they could to achieve the required target, it wasn't a measure of ability at exercising a skill.

[lambsy_uk]

In the case in hand I'd suggest that if the fuss had been kept between the school and the pupil's family then something could have been sorted out without much fuss and the reward scheme could have remained. However some genius had the idea of getting the local media involved and so escallated things beyond reason; thus perhaps leading the school to take action beyond where they may have otherwise gone!

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@bankhaunter wrote:

Such a scheme would also seem to be discriminatory against pupils who have poor health since they are more likely to need time away from school.

I got the impression the treat was a reward and not an incentive and one would have thought that a reward for children would be awarded if they had done all they could to achieve the required target, it wasn't a measure of ability at exercising a skill.

---

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/head-teacher-says-sorry-after-7474559

Now, headteacher Anne Parry has written a letter to the Telegraph apologising for the school’s decision.

She wrote: “I want to say upfront how truly sorry we are that this has happened and take this chance to explain how the oversight occurred.

“Countless schools across the UK are being placed under pressure to improve their annual attendance figures.

“In order to encourage and support this, many schools are now looking for increasingly creative methods to promote these government set targets.”

Sounds like an incentive to me 🙂

[bankhaunter]

But not much of one if a single absence at the start of the year rules a pupil out no matter what they do the rest of the time or for some children may mean they know they have no chance anyway.

A real incentive is one which makes every day's attendance matter for every child.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@bankhaunter wrote:

But not much of one if a single absence at the start of the year rules a pupil out no matter what they do the rest of the time or for some children may mean they know they have no chance anyway.

A real incentive is one which makes every day's attendance matter for every child.

---

Maybe not but a jolly good one for those who have a perfect attendance with just a few days to go.

I would dispute your definition of a 'real incentive' - incentives are generally just part of a package designed to achieve a particular objective and can apply in many cases to some as well as everyone.

In any case there is little dobt that the head teacher in this instance saw the scheme as an incentive and not a reward scheme - an incentive that has now been withdrawn.

As I said in my earlier post, I feel for the young lady cocerned but her family's actions in publicly criticising the school in the way they have has ended up in either a reward scheme from which pupils could benefit or an incentive scheme from which both school and pupils could benefit being withdrawn - how does that make things better?