Aibu to think this is Discriminating at its best?

[pumpkinsweetie]

Just a general aibu, about a new scheme that has started at my dds Academy.
To reward children for having 96 percent per term by having a non-uniform day for those that achieved that greater and all those that do not succeed must come in full uniform!
Bare in mind the age ranges go from 3-11, do you think this is wrong?
My dds luckily achieved this but with one of them only being 4yo, if she doesn't succeed next term i will have one very upset little girl.

Aibu to think this will only upset the children who couldn't help being ill for a few days some terms and to also find that this discriminates those with health problems?

There are no special exemptions, the child must obtain 96 percent attendence or greater for the entire term to achieve one non uniform day.

I know its a tactic to achieve a better overall attendance, but at what cost to the child's emotions if there happens to be only one child in class in uniform.

Sorry to moan on, i just think its wrong.

And yeah, I would disrespect discriminatory policies.

A school near me has just published it's attendance record...out of over 500 pupils only 2 absences were recorded in the whole of a school year.

by tutor group i am assuming mawgatron teaches secondary level. which isn't teh age group being discussed.

Crashdoll Thanks, I have done that. I am so angry about it, TBH.

Mawgatron Does your school have non-uniform days for the DC who haven't had a detention, or who have worn their uniform correctly all term, or not forgotten to do their homework, or did really well in their tests, or consistently tried hard?

Also, for those who say it works in secondary, if you have a bout of illness early on in the school year, surely then there's no incentive not to skive for the rest of the year?

Grown adults who subject children with disabilities or chronic medical conditions to tasks they knowing cannot complete?

Yeah, I'd challenge that type of 'adult' or 'policy' anyway.

Luckily our school is staffed with sympathetic, understanding teachers including the head, who understand that working with the parents is better than backing an unrealistic, discriminatory policy.

I'm sorry but Mawgatron, you sound exactly like the type of teacher I'd be happy to avoid.

I think discounting absences for a pre existing long term medical condition or sen would be fairer.
Because under the current rules there will be some children that never stand a chance of getting 100% attendance. They should "level the playing field."

Of course Maw, but i should respect discrimination, on your nelly. Because segregation really is the right way to teach a child [hmmm]
Oh and i have grown up, very much thankyou.
Ive grown up to respect those who have disabilities and those that have illnesses not Ofsted report obsessed head teachers. Discrimination is wrong, and if that makes me sound childish so be it.
Aleast my children wont grow up to tease, taunt and manipulate others to fufill their own needs.

And Maw this is a discussion about primary pupils, so where detention comes in is rather puzzling..

Dancing, that is what they are supposed to do by law, but how many schools do?

I had DS1's college's HT on the phone moaning that he had time off college. He had whooping cough. He was having the work emailed home. I asked the HT of he had wanted whooping cough too, and he said of course not. It wasn't DS1's fault he caught it. I couldn't send him in. He is still on target to get 3 A's at A level.

I feel like asking what percentage of attendance the staff have to have before they can attend the parties etc!

so fuck the kids with cancer, epilepsy and other conditions as they cannot have 100% attendance. Cos they need to learn rules.

Their lives are hard enough without stupid policies like this that discriminate.

Even the teachers think the new policies stink, my dds teach is very unimpressed by the changes.
One secretary even said to me the phone hasn't stopped ringing with complaints

Maw, I think children should learn when its appropriate to challenge policy. I don't want to teach my children to do what the grown up says regardless.

I respect the school and wouldn't go against any valid policy but refuse to blindly support any policy they choose to dream up.

Surely that is how children grow up to know right from wrong and change discriminatory policy.

At work I didn't have to book hospital appointments related to my diabetes as holiday because then it meant that I would be getting less holiday than everyone else, I usually did my best to get them at the end of the day and only leave an hour earlier but if push came to shove I was covered by the dda.

Why shouldn't this apply to children? On first diagnosis I had loads of time off and was generally distraught. If I'd then been exempt from some reward because of it I'd have been even more distraught.

Since parental income is a far better indicator of academic achievement, why not reward those children whose parents earn more than, say, £30,000?

They could always nag them to earn more.

as a child that was in and out of hospital (also with a disability that required several hospital appointments a year) throughout my entire school life, i would have been absolutely heartbroken if this had happened to me. I loved school. its not my fault that i'm deaf, that i have a hearing aid, that i had to have various operations to fix various other problems. Luckily i went to very understanding state schools that supported me through this. I think this is a very sad story.

i'd give dd that day off school

im joking really; id complain and send her in in mufty anywy

Maw, I think children should learn when its appropriate to challenge policy.

Quite! When my DD realised that sitting there being humiliated once a term wasn't reasonable she began to refuse to attend the special assembly. She stood her ground and remained in the classroom for the duration.

I happened to be in a meeting in school that first morning and her teacher was called out to deal with it. She caused quite some consternation. Her actions resulted in the school reviewing the policy.

In her next school she told a teacher that her attendance figures were confidential and shouldn't be shared with her class. They reviewed their policy too.

I don't think this means she doesn't respect authority and will feel that school is optional when she's older. Quite the opposite. She has more respect for people who are prepared to listen and reflect on their actions.

I'm immensely proud of how she handled it both times.

Has this ever been challenged legally under the Equality Act?

It seems to be pretty clear-cut:

indirect discrimination occurs when treating all pupils in the same way results in putting pupils with a protected characteristic at a disadvantage. It depends on the following conditions being met:

a provision, criterion or practice is applied equally to all relevant pupils, including those with a protected characteristic,

and the provision, criterion or practice puts pupils sharing a protected characteristic at a disadvantage compared to other relevant pupils

and the provision, criterion, practice or rule puts the particular pupil concerned at a disadvantage

and the school cannot demonstrate that the provision, criteria or practice is justified as a ?proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim?.

I really can't see the big deal about attendance rewards tbh, and I speak as someone who has one child with almost constant 100% attendance (and the resulting reawrds) and one whose attendance has, at times, been less than 35% due to serious life threatening illness. They both understand the situation.

I would feel less happy about a non-uniform day than a certificate though.

If you don't like attendance rewards for primary pupils, how do you feel about rewards for reading, good homework, dress-up day, which class can raise the most for charity, swimming galas, sports day, times tables tests, etc? Just to name a few of the things my children's school gives rewards for.

There is potential for children to feel discriminated against virtually 100% of the time. Better to teach your children to roll with the punches, so to speak, than to try to make everything fair for them. Life is not fair and the earlier they learn it the better.

"If you don't like attendance rewards for primary pupils, how do you feel about rewards for reading, good homework, dress-up day, which class can raise the most for charity, swimming galas, sports day, times tables tests, etc? Just to name a few of the things my children's school gives rewards for."

All of which are within the child's control. Rewarding children for something they have actually done is a good idea. Rewarding them for something their parents- or indeed, fate- have done, isn't.

I won't win a grammar award for that last post, but you get my drift

It depends, rewards can be given for effort or for personal achievement, based on a child's own circumstances. The child who struggles with maths an gets a 5/10 on a maths test might have worked far far harder and achieved more than a child who gets 10 but had a natural talent for maths.

To never recognise the efforts of the child who is working extremely hard but is unlikely to ever get full marks would be discriminatory when the reward could be given in recognition of the effort they put in.

thethersend - All of which are within the child's control. Rewarding children for something they have actually done is a good idea. Rewarding them for something their parents- or indeed, fate- have done, isn't.

It is not within my 6 year old's control to learn her times tables for her test by herself. Or to be heard reading at home 30 times to get a reward. Or to raise money since she cannot actually earn it herself. Or to have the best home-made costume for dress-up day. Or to be able to produce better homework than someone whose parents have toiled over it for countless hours. Every single one of those examples I gave is NOT within the personal control of a primary school pupil.

Still feel the same?

I also would have less issue this a certificate or even a book token.

It's the being excluded from something that seems wrong.