• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
sarahbell

out of school

Recommended Posts

She said: “The kids only had a few days off when it first happened. Shamsa needed to spend time with her family. Her GP advised her to take a trip to Pakistan to be with family. She didn’t have much option but to take the kids because she’s a single parent now and her health is suffering.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/family-pakistan-trip-school-places-14376571

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Dean Trust chief executive and academy principal Tarun Kapur said children are expected to be in school unless there are exceptional circumstances.

For me, the death of their father is an exceptional circumstance. Unequivocally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

For me, the death of their father is an exceptional circumstance. Unequivocally.

But he died some time ago.
He didn't die in Pakistan. 

One could infer from this that the lady in question relied solely on her husband for support and her existance in the Uk. When he has gone she is effectively left to manage on her own, in a place she has very few friends or social connections. 

A GP can suggest what they like - it's NOT a medical reason to go to Pakistan though. 

No one ever gets a prescription for a week in barbados to sort their SAD out, or a train ticket to their mums when they are a bit depressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

But he died some time ago.
He didn't die in Pakistan. 

One could infer from this that the lady in question relied solely on her husband for support and her existance in the Uk. When he has gone she is effectively left to manage on her own, in a place she has very few friends or social connections. 

A GP can suggest what they like - it's NOT a medical reason to go to Pakistan though. 

No one ever gets a prescription for a week in barbados to sort their SAD out, or a train ticket to their mums when they are a bit depressed.

Exactly.

Quote

Shamsa Imam took her boys away in January so they could visit close family and attend memorial events for their late father Muhammad Ali Imam, 47, who died of cancer last September.

If they had had six weeks off after their father's death in September then I am sure that the school would have had every sympathy and would not have taken this course of action.

This is not what happened.  She was struggling to cope, as happens to many single mothers, but they do not then four months later take a six week holiday in term time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sarahbell said:

But he died some time ago.
He didn't die in Pakistan. 

He died in the last 6 months. This is comfortably inside a reasonable period of mourning. Seems wildly, unbelievably dickish to punish kids for taking time to spend with their extended family after their Dad has died. Shame on them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

He died in the last 6 months. This is comfortably inside a reasonable period of mourning. Seems wildly, unbelievably dickish to punish kids for taking time to spend with their extended family after their Dad has died. Shame on them.

 

mum needs support here - or to decide to move to Pakistan if that's where her family is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

Well basic human compassion from the school would be a decent place to start.

I don't think you can say there has been no "basic human compassion".
This isn't about someone whose husband died a week ago. This is six months ago. 
If it's not got a bit better at six months then the mother needs counselling and support where she lives. 
If she needs social support and can find it somewhere other than where she lives, then I suspect the long term answer is for her to move there.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sarahbell said:

I don't think you can say there has been no "basic human compassion".
This isn't about someone whose husband died a week ago. This is six months ago. 
If it's not got a bit better at six months then the mother needs counselling and support where she lives. 
If she needs social support and can find it somewhere other than where she lives, then I suspect the long term answer is for her to move there.
 

You can suspect whatever you like about where her support network may be, but with the best will in the world you know fuck all about her circumstances. If my wife were to die unexpectedly I would certainly take the kids to see her parents in Hong Kong for a spell. It wouldn't in any way imply that my "social support" is rooted there, or that I can't cope here. In fact, an acquaintance's wife died out of the blue, and he took their kid out America to spend time with her friends and family for 8 months. i don't think he ever considered actually moving there, all of his friends and family are here. In fact, his work were happy to give him as long as he needed as an unpaid sabbatical.   

I'm not sure where anyone could see any upside to this malignant bastardry. It won't do the kids any good, the family any good, the school any good, or wider society any good. So what exactly is the point? As a lesson to others that if a parent dies, the most important thing is not to attend any inconvenient mourning ceremonies, but show up for your double French class as usual. That lacks empathy to the degree that calling it psychotic doesn't seem amiss.

This would be an unthinkable course of action at a private school. Quite literally unthinkable, it would not even occur to anyone that this should even be a possibility. Frankly, I don't see why it should be any different at a state school.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

You can suspect whatever you like about where her support network may be, but with the best will in the world you know fuck all about her circumstances. If my wife were to die unexpectedly I would certainly take the kids to see her parents in Hong Kong for a spell. It wouldn't in any way imply that my "social support" is rooted there, or that I can't cope here. In fact, an acquaintance's wife died out of the blue, and he took their kid out America to spend time with her friends and family for 8 months. i don't think he ever considered actually moving there, all of his friends and family are here. In fact, his work were happy to give him as long as he needed as an unpaid sabbatical.   

I'm not sure where anyone could see any upside to this malignant bastardry. It won't do the kids any good, the family any good, the school any good, or wider society any good. So what exactly is the point? As a lesson to others that if a parent dies, the most important thing is not to attend any inconvenient mourning ceremonies, but show up for your double French class as usual. That lacks empathy to the degree that calling it psychotic doesn't seem amiss.

This would be an unthinkable course of action at a private school. Quite literally unthinkable, it would not even occur to anyone that this should even be a possibility. Frankly, I don't see why it should be any different at a state school.

 

The school has children on the waiting list. I suppose those children desperate to attend this school should just wait until this family has finished with using the school as a drop-in centre?

From the story the school had leeway to let them have a month but 6 weeks (and counting) has exhausted their patience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, the gardener said:

The school has children on the waiting list. I suppose those children desperate to attend this school should just wait until this family has finished with using the school as a drop-in centre?

From the story the school had leeway to let them have a month but 6 weeks (and counting) has exhausted their patience.

xD They didn’t go to Butlins, their Dad just died.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

xD They didn’t go to Butlins, their Dad just died.

No. That happened six months ago.

I agree that some time off should be given. 'Mourning ceremonies' stretching over a period of at least six weeks and held six months after the death is stretching things somewhat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mandatory schooling is needed in a country with a welfare state (or else the costs of feral kids are borne by everyone else - whereas in Victorian times the costs were largely borne by the family concerned).

In this case, I think that a visit to see extended family post death is reasonable from the point of view of the family, but unreasonably affects the kids education and therefore creates an opportunity cost for society in the future.  Another example of the hidden cost of immigration that will never appear in a GDP chart.

My solution would be the kids are held back one year in school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, wherebee said:

Mandatory schooling is needed in a country with a welfare state (or else the costs of feral kids are borne by everyone else - whereas in Victorian times the costs were largely borne by the family concerned).

In this case, I think that a visit to see extended family post death is reasonable from the point of view of the family, but unreasonably affects the kids education and therefore creates an opportunity cost for society in the future.  Another example of the hidden cost of immigration that will never appear in a GDP chart.

My solution would be the kids are held back one year in school.

Kicking them out of school will multiply the likelihood and severity of that risk.

There is nothing to suggest they are struggling academically. Assuming they aren’t, what possible purpose is served by holding them back a year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

Kicking them out of school will multiply the likelihood and severity of that risk.

There is nothing to suggest they are struggling academically. Assuming they aren’t, what possible purpose is served by holding them back a year?

False argument out of nowhere alert - I never suggested exclusion.

 

There is also nothing to suggest they are not falling behind.  which do you think is most likely with a single parent household with a recently dead father, and six months away from school.  DUH. 

 

It ensures that they have had the same lessons and content as the other children.  It also is an easy precedent/rule to apply which allows flexibility for families who need kids to have time out of school, whilst imposing a cost on families and ensuring kids do not miss out on critical days.  Rule could be - more than 4 weeks in a year sick/absent, redo that year. 

Edited by wherebee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, wherebee said:

False argument out of nowhere alert - I never suggested exclusion.

 

There is also nothing to suggest they are not falling behind.  which do you think is most likely with a single parent household with a recently dead father, and six months away from school.  DUH. 

 

It ensures that they have had the same lessons and content as the other children.  It also is an easy precedent/rule to apply which allows flexibility for families who need kids to have time out of school, whilst imposing a cost on families and ensuring kids do not miss out on critical days.  Rule could be - more than 4 weeks in a year sick/absent, redo that year. 

Have you not read the article linked in the OP? The school is planning on excluding the kids. They haven’t missed 6 months of school, they have missed 5 weeks max.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, wherebee said:

False argument out of nowhere alert - I never suggested exclusion.

 

There is also nothing to suggest they are not falling behind.  which do you think is most likely with a single parent household with a recently dead father, and six months away from school.  DUH. 

 

It ensures that they have had the same lessons and content as the other children.  It also is an easy precedent/rule to apply which allows flexibility for families who need kids to have time out of school, whilst imposing a cost on families and ensuring kids do not miss out on critical days.  Rule could be - more than 4 weeks in a year sick/absent, redo that year. 

I'd have been in primary school til my late teens if that had been applied to me and I was always top of my class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

Have you not read the article linked in the OP? The school is planning on excluding the kids. They haven’t missed 6 months of school, they have missed 5 weeks max.

I'm not the school.  I was proposing a better solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, wherebee said:

I'm not the school.  I was proposing a better solution.

Currently there is no requirement to demonstrate any level of attainment in order to progress through the school in the British state school system. Non-persistent absenteeism seems likely to be a phenomenally poor proxy. 

If there is a legitimate concern about attainment at each school level, wouldn't it be better to measure attainment of all children at the end of each school year and make decisions based on that, rather than an arbitrary, blanket rule for absenteeism based on unsubstantiated speculation about likely attainment? 

Edit - just to be crystal clear: if the concern is attainment, measure attainment.

Edited by Hail the Tripod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

Currently there is no requirement to demonstrate any level of attainment in order to progress through the school in the British state school system. Non-persistent absenteeism seems likely to be a phenomenally poor proxy. 

If there is a legitimate concern about attainment at each school level, wouldn't it be better to measure attainment of all children at the end of each school year and make decisions based on that, rather than an arbitrary, blanket rule for absenteeism based on unsubstantiated speculation about likely attainment? 

Edit - just to be crystal clear: if the concern is attainment, measure attainment.

Yeah if you don't pass the year in CH, you do it again. This presents some issues as well though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, swissy_fit said:

Yeah if you don't pass the year in CH, you do it again. This presents some issues as well though.

Great line in the film Dazed and Confused about the school bully (played by Ben Affleck): "Idiot flunks his final year, so he gets to be an asshole for two years in a row. How's that even legal?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

Currently there is no requirement to demonstrate any level of attainment in order to progress through the school in the British state school system. Non-persistent absenteeism seems likely to be a phenomenally poor proxy. 

If there is a legitimate concern about attainment at each school level, wouldn't it be better to measure attainment of all children at the end of each school year and make decisions based on that, rather than an arbitrary, blanket rule for absenteeism based on unsubstantiated speculation about likely attainment? 

Edit - just to be crystal clear: if the concern is attainment, measure attainment.

Totally.

The current obsession with all children in school every day is a result of a moronic reading of statistics which showed a strong correlation between attendance and achievement.

Now any sensible person (i.e. not a civil servant or education minister) would immediately and correctly presume that the poor attendance is usually the result of a poor family background and vice versa.  If the child's parents aren't bothered about their child attending school then they aren't going to be ensuring that they do their homework.

So the actual correlation is between achievement and family background with attendance levels being an incidental factor deriving from family background.

Policy however has been set upon the incidental factor of attendance as the most important thing so that's what is enforced.

However achievement will as ever be primarily dictated by family background so it will make no difference to individual achievement but does mean that holiday prices go through the roof for six weeks each summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.