fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
I see the non litigious council have been in court again, this time prosecuting some parents for having the gall to take their children on holiday during school term time.
Council lot (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter fernandopartridge
- Start date
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
The education authorities really fuck me off. It's OK for them to strike at the drop of a hat, or tag a "teacher training day" at the end of a holiday or at random times during the school year. Ooh, I could crush a grape.
Admittedly, I am one of the "council lot", but I ain't striking today. Nothing against those that do.
Admittedly, I am one of the "council lot", but I ain't striking today. Nothing against those that do.
duffer
Well-Known Member
Erm... I think this is something that the Government have brought in.
Here's the thing about stuff like this - if you don't like it you can set up some sort of pressure group, and see if you can get the law changed. Alternatively, as with all of the laws that you don't agree with, you can break them and take your chance, but there's not much point then whining about it if you end up in court.
You could equally spin this as feckless parents decide that a cheap holiday is worth more than their children's education - which was really the point of this legislation. In truth, as a parent I can see both sides - but to try to suggest these people are in court because the Council is wedded to litigation is a bit rich.
To bring this close to a CCFC-related thread, the Council have never forced SISU into court, it's always been the other way around - you do know that, right?
Here's the thing about stuff like this - if you don't like it you can set up some sort of pressure group, and see if you can get the law changed. Alternatively, as with all of the laws that you don't agree with, you can break them and take your chance, but there's not much point then whining about it if you end up in court.
You could equally spin this as feckless parents decide that a cheap holiday is worth more than their children's education - which was really the point of this legislation. In truth, as a parent I can see both sides - but to try to suggest these people are in court because the Council is wedded to litigation is a bit rich.
To bring this close to a CCFC-related thread, the Council have never forced SISU into court, it's always been the other way around - you do know that, right?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Easy as you like.
duffer
Well-Known Member
You can't strike at the drop-of-a-hat these days Torchy. That's a myth.
Two ways of looking at this. You could grumble because you've been inconvenienced by having to look after your kids, etc. Or you could look at why people are going on strike and consider if they might have a point.
I don't work in Local Govt or teaching, btw, but I've got sympathy for those that do, and for those that feel they need to protect their rights (and they'd argue, our services) by legitimate industrial action. Even if that puts me out a bit from time-to-time. Others differ, I know.
duffer
Well-Known Member
Not quite with you - are you saying that you weren't having an inane rant, and I just misread you? You were just being ironic, right?
Wow. Sorry. It's just that I'd got it in my head that you were just one of those pissy "it's all the Council's fault" whiners, who couldn't really be arsed to ever look at the facts before complaining. Obviously I misunderstood, and your OP was a work of comic genius that went right over my head. Apologies, but it never works if you have to explain it, I'd say.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
No. I was testing how long it would take one of you lot to jump to their defence.
(Yes I know they're implementing government policy but thanks for the explanation)
duffer
Well-Known Member
What a pathetic thing to say. "One of you lot".
You've made a clearly inane, ill-thought out whine, and when someone points out how dumb it is, it becomes "one of you lot, defending the council again".
I don't doubt the Council do things wrong, in fact I know they do, but to complain about everything they do is risible. Come back when you've got a point you can support, rather than a pointless wind up.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
You've jumped on a post I left as bait with a typically patronising explanation of the council's actions.
The thread went exactly as expected. Thank you for your contribution.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Is that right? Just thought it was another attack on CCC myself. Just like many others will have.
This new law is an ass. I am up against it right at this time. I am taking my mother on holiday with us. It is a break for her from looking after my step dad. He has been in very bad health for years. A few weeks ago he had his eight heart attack. We had planned for him to drive my mother to the A1 near Lincoln and meet them there next Friday. But his latest heart attack has stopped this. So either the kids need the last day of term off or my mother can't have a holiday.
I thought the high school would say no. When I explained what had happened they said yes straight away. So I went to see my 5 year olds school. It took nearly two weeks of me asking whether we had permission or not before they told me that they have refused my request. They said they can only authorise exceptional circumstances. So I asked if she thought that the high school was wrong. She said no. I then asked her if she thought she was wrong. She said no :thinking about: She then said that every day in school is important and nothing should get in the way of their education. Then the next day I got a letter saying that the school would be closed yesterday for a teachers strike
This stupid law brought out by this government has only guidelines. It is left down to who is in charge of the school. And they all have their own ideas on what is and isn't allowed.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Is that right? Just thought it was another attack on CCC myself. Just like many others will have.
This new law is an ass. I am up against it right at this time. I am taking my mother on holiday with us. It is a break for her from looking after my step dad. He has been in very bad health for years. A few weeks ago he had his eight heart attack. We had planned for him to drive my mother to the A1 near Lincoln and meet them there next Friday. But his latest heart attack has stopped this. So either the kids need the last day of term off or my mother can't have a holiday.
I thought the high school would say no. When I explained what had happened they said yes straight away. So I went to see my 5 year olds school. It took nearly two weeks of me asking whether we had permission or not before they told me that they have refused my request. They said they can only authorise exceptional circumstances. So I asked if she thought that the high school was wrong. She said no. I then asked her if she thought she was wrong. She said no :thinking about: She then said that every day in school is important and nothing should get in the way of their education. Then the next day I got a letter saying that the school would be closed yesterday for a teachers strike
This stupid law brought out by this government has only guidelines. It is left down to who is in charge of the school. And they all have their own ideas on what is and isn't allowed.
Sometimes schools and councils can be understanding, sometimes absolutely not.
My daughter has just this very minute had 20 days off school. It was authorised absence though for performance. Still took a lot of hassling from the council to get it mind. She does have a lot of authorised absence from school. Think it is nearly 50 days off school for the year, but the school have always been fine about it, the council not so. And it varies by area. Some councils are very supportive, some you have to fight tooth and nail with.
We had a situation earlier this year when it was required for my daughter to work past 10 p.m. and the council point blank refused. Apparently 75% of the councils across the country do approve this sort of thing and 25% of councils don't.
There's no uniformity. Why is it okay for a kid from Leicstershire to work past 10 p.m. and it's not okay for a kid from Coventry?
Just plain daft.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
To give you an idea of how stupid this rule is and the reasons for school's actions, I'll tell you the story of how my last school got put in special measures (since over turned) this was Dudley MBC though.
A bit of background: the school had been a nice leafy suburb school that recently had absorbed the local sink estate school that had shut down. It was weird, the school was almost split in two between tearaway chavs and nice middle class kids with names like "Fe". But behaviour around school was good apart from the odd bottom set cover lesson and results had been consistently improving since the drop when the other school closed. In fact we'd been awarded most improved school in the borough 3 years running and were on for our fourth. A couple of years ago an academy sponsor had come to talk to parents and was literally chased off site because the parents loved the school and didn't want it to change (that's Dudley for you).
Anyway, Ofsted call through in April and the school goes into overdrive, I'm observed twice and get Good twice, everyone I speak to gets Good or above apart from one or two, plus a couple of Outstandings. Students are brilliant, we show evidence of improvement, impact of the new management team, etc. Everyone gathers for the expected Good (or at absolute worst Satisfactory) result at the end of the second day.
The head come in and tells us that we're in Special Measures (the worst possible result) and here's why:
- Despite improving year on year, the school's attendance was 92%. It's target was 95%. Bear in mind that we are a school for the deaf and have several students on long term sick (cancer, etc.) and are being schooled at hospital.
- Because of this Behaviour was judged to be Unsatisfactory (as "they can't behave if they're not in school")
- Progress was also judged to be Unsatisfactory (because "they can't learn if they're not in school")
- Rules state that is Progress and Behaviour are Unsatisfactory, so is Teaching and Management.
- All 4s = Special Measures
The school got it overturned eventually (actually by reclassifying students as present when they could), but immediately had to show the government that they were "cracking down" on this non-existent attendance problem. Parents were sent letters. Anyone with less than 85% attendance (including my Y7 tutee who had time off with tonsillitis in the first term) was threatened with prosecution and made to meet the Deputy Head every morning. All holidays were denied, very arsey letters sent to every parent about not taking holidays.
Several staff quit (including me) before the judgement was overturned because they didn't want to work in a special measures school and the leadership team nearly lost their jobs.
This isn't in any way unusual practice.
Next time you hear a politician talking about "tough targets" or "high standards" remember what you're really voting for.
A bit of background: the school had been a nice leafy suburb school that recently had absorbed the local sink estate school that had shut down. It was weird, the school was almost split in two between tearaway chavs and nice middle class kids with names like "Fe". But behaviour around school was good apart from the odd bottom set cover lesson and results had been consistently improving since the drop when the other school closed. In fact we'd been awarded most improved school in the borough 3 years running and were on for our fourth. A couple of years ago an academy sponsor had come to talk to parents and was literally chased off site because the parents loved the school and didn't want it to change (that's Dudley for you
).Anyway, Ofsted call through in April and the school goes into overdrive, I'm observed twice and get Good twice, everyone I speak to gets Good or above apart from one or two, plus a couple of Outstandings. Students are brilliant, we show evidence of improvement, impact of the new management team, etc. Everyone gathers for the expected Good (or at absolute worst Satisfactory) result at the end of the second day.
The head come in and tells us that we're in Special Measures (the worst possible result) and here's why:
- Despite improving year on year, the school's attendance was 92%. It's target was 95%. Bear in mind that we are a school for the deaf and have several students on long term sick (cancer, etc.) and are being schooled at hospital.
- Because of this Behaviour was judged to be Unsatisfactory (as "they can't behave if they're not in school")
- Progress was also judged to be Unsatisfactory (because "they can't learn if they're not in school")
- Rules state that is Progress and Behaviour are Unsatisfactory, so is Teaching and Management.
- All 4s = Special Measures
The school got it overturned eventually (actually by reclassifying students as present when they could), but immediately had to show the government that they were "cracking down" on this non-existent attendance problem. Parents were sent letters. Anyone with less than 85% attendance (including my Y7 tutee who had time off with tonsillitis in the first term) was threatened with prosecution and made to meet the Deputy Head every morning. All holidays were denied, very arsey letters sent to every parent about not taking holidays.
Several staff quit (including me) before the judgement was overturned because they didn't want to work in a special measures school and the leadership team nearly lost their jobs.
This isn't in any way unusual practice.
Next time you hear a politician talking about "tough targets" or "high standards" remember what you're really voting for.
Last edited:
Covstu
Well-Known Member
I can see striking from both sides albeit i think they need to be realistic with the continuing battle around pensions as they have had it good for decades. The private sector has certainly had to change their stance on final salary pensions due to the millions being racked up by each company, the public sector pension carries Billions in debt which will always be a noose round the councils/government neck and is only going to get bigger unless changes are made.
My wife works at a primary school (she used to work at a college), so it is extremely restrictive of when we can take holidays and costs are just unacceptable. This is the area where the government need to target rather than taking parents to court for a day off. Personally i would not pull my kids out of school (not at school just yet) but i can totally understand why parents do as they cannot afford the rediculous hike in costs for the sake of a few days. Clamp down on the travel industry and the parent issue will sort itself out.
I think there is also a perception that teachers have it easy as they only work 8-3 and term time only, vertually every night my wife is taking work home and working all hours and this is predominantly things that are not adding value, just more red tape bullshit that has to be done to cover people's asses.
My wife works at a primary school (she used to work at a college), so it is extremely restrictive of when we can take holidays and costs are just unacceptable. This is the area where the government need to target rather than taking parents to court for a day off. Personally i would not pull my kids out of school (not at school just yet) but i can totally understand why parents do as they cannot afford the rediculous hike in costs for the sake of a few days. Clamp down on the travel industry and the parent issue will sort itself out.
I think there is also a perception that teachers have it easy as they only work 8-3 and term time only, vertually every night my wife is taking work home and working all hours and this is predominantly things that are not adding value, just more red tape bullshit that has to be done to cover people's asses.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Well done. I only had Duffer as my third choice to jump on this one but he was as predictable as ever.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
FWIW, I've striked every time, but not about pay or pensions, rather about workload and administration. Except no-one's offering a strike about that.
Most teachers I know don't have an issue with the pay, it's just a handy excuse to vent other frustrations about education at the moment.
Otis
Well-Known Member
It's daft Shmmeee.
We had a letter from the council at the beginning of last year saying my daughter's absence level was unnaceptable. 15 days off sick she had for the year. 11 of those days though were for one bout of chicken pox. We kept her off so as not to infect anyone else.
Maybe we should have just gone in and shared the ailment with the entire school. :facepalm:
We had a letter from the council at the beginning of last year saying my daughter's absence level was unnaceptable. 15 days off sick she had for the year. 11 of those days though were for one bout of chicken pox. We kept her off so as not to infect anyone else.
Maybe we should have just gone in and shared the ailment with the entire school. :facepalm:
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Tell me about it.
It's all "targets". There's no humanity any more, all it takes is one normal childhood illness and suddenly you're on the hit list of bad parents. But as I say, if the school doesn't do it then they get hammered for not "being tough enough on poor attenders".
Otis
Well-Known Member
Used to work for a charity. It was great! Then all of a sudden the only talk was of budgets and targets. The whole atmosphere changed and it became a horrible company to work for.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Did you know that if an A&E department fails to see 95% of patients within 4 hours they get fined £50k for every month in which this happens?
This sort of dysfunctional crap exists everywhere.
This sort of dysfunctional crap exists everywhere.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
It's insanity and the mindset of widget makers and car salesmen who genuinely can't understand public sector work. The same as the performance related pay they want in schools. All that will happen is that more teachers will cheat (and it's a huge amount already). Those that don't or those that teach low ability will be screwed, leading to the bright students (who don't benefit as much from good teaching) getting all the good teachers and the less able getting whoever is about at the time.
Once you set a target in a job you are implicitly saying that everything that's not a target isn't important.
Funnily enough, the answer always seems to be more targets.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Teachers have gone on strike for three or four years running haven't they? And it aint just teachers who are poorly paid and have crap pensions.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Yep. My son's school is "outstanding" and I so regret him going there. They are only interested - and make no secret of it - in about 10% of pupils.
Otis
Well-Known Member
You're wrong Torch, it hasn't been t three or four years running, it's only been one day at a time.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The "target" though is mediocre performance isn't it? The senior schools I viewed had some bizarre strategy to put children into GCSE's a year early. The motive soon became clear - it was to ensure they managed a C Grade. So if they did achieve this in enough subjects they did nothing in the Final Year. It was absurd. If they didn't these children could resit the final year.
I opted out -- I did not get into the religious school so I went private.
Nick
Administrator
Same with my daughter, she is skipping a year to go into Year 2 from Reception next year but for the last year they only seem interested in the kids who are struggling, naughty or English is their second language.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Other way round for us. They concentrate on the "bright" ones so they can keep that all important outstanding rating. Bastards.
Nick
Administrator
Out of order either way
Each kid should be pushed to their limits to get the best out of them rather than targets, policies etc but not being a teacher myself I can only guess it comes from way above teacher level...
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
As I said, it's not really about pensions and pay, though having the deal I signed up for ripped up without so much as a consultation does piss me off. As with most public sector workers I expect: if the system was working we'd work for virtually nothing. But it's not. However, no-one is offering us a strike (or indeed any other way of venting our frustration) about that issue.
We're fast on track for demoting teachers to low paid baby sitters in this country. If that's what you want for your kids, fair enough. But I want a well motivated work force that follows evidence and best practice. Not a bunch of minimum wage temps administering online testing.
/rant
L
limoncello
Guest
I'm reliably informed that the term 'key performance indicators' was first used for the US army in Vietnam. There's a whole language that's developed around making the grunts work harder and it's not just in the public sector. 'We've ringfenced the re-enablement framework to robustly de-disenfranchise stakeholders'. Middle-management bunkum.
