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.

Fortunately my school doesn't do any of this rubbish. As a teacher, I don't want parents sending their ill children to try and achieve some silly reward, but only succeed in infecting me, which has a bigger impact on students schooling when I then need to take time off. Keep them home if they're sick and stop worrying about some arbitary percentage attendance figure.

I find that some schools are very hypocritical about absence. My ds with SEN was placed on a part time timetable for almost a year (threatened with permanent exclusion as an alternative). His absence record showed that he was being 'educated elsewhere' when not there when in fact school supplied no work after the first week or so. When queried about this they said that it was a 'genuine mistake'. His absences amounted to about 45% but if I had decided to keep him off that much I would have faced court and a hefty fine.

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.

These rewards tend to single out one or a few children for attention. The majority applaud together the achievements of the minority.

Attendance awards reward the majority en masse, thereby singling out a few for not achieving.

I disagree Goldmandra.

My children's school only dishes out attendance rewards for 100% attendance so it is only ever a minority who receive the reward. The majority of children will at some point manage to reach "30 reads at home", but a minority will never be heard and never get a reward.

My children's school only dishes out attendance rewards for 100% attendance so it is only ever a minority who receive the reward.

That very much depends on how often they are dished out. In my DD's primary they were for 100% too and there were only every four or five who had to be ritually humiliated by remaining seated.

Do all the children who achieve '30 reads' get to be identified all together on the same day in some way so that all present can tell who hasn't achieved the 30 reads?

Sorry, posted too soon.

Do all the children who achieve '30 reads' get to be identified all together on the same day in some way so that all present can tell who hasn't achieved the 30 reads? I imagine that they are actually rewarded a few at a time so the majority is applauding the minority.

Keep them off for the day.

thethersend I am currently challenging this policy under the Equality Act on behalf of DS2. I contacted the Equality and Human Rights Comission about the school saying DS2 won't be able to go to the Prom because of his attendance, which is not up to scratch because of his severe asthma. They have supported me through writing a letter, told me what parts of the Act to quote etc. They have, also, said if DS2 doesn't get to go to the Prom, they will help him take legal action against the school.

Good luck landofsoapandglory- I'd love to know how you get on.

"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."

Pupils are, to a degree, in control of learning their own times tables- an increase in effort will likely yield better results.

Rewarding children for being heard reading at home is as absurd as attendance awards, I missed that one. Ditto home made costumes. Ridiculous.

Children can raise money without parental input. They can design events, carry out sponsored silences etc. and collect money.

Parents should not be involved in homework at all- to suggest that a child is not in control of their own homework is simply incorrect.

I would be very interested to know what happens land, I applaud.

Thank you, tethers and yellow. [busmile]

My children attend large schools. Perhaps that makes a difference? Attendance rewards are dished out at the end of each (old-style) term. Of 300+ children in each school about 25-30% max will achieve 100% attendance (7-8 children per class of 30), so definitely a minority.

"30 reads" is rewarded as and when it is achieved by being able to choose a small gift.

However, my original point was that these (30 reads etc.) are things children are rewarded for which are as out of their control to achieve as 100% attendance. If it isn't fair to reward attendance when a child has no control over it, it is also unfair to reward anything else in that category.

Agreed, permanentlyexhausted; rewarding a child for any action outside of their control is absurd, and makes a mockery of the rewards in place for actual achievement.

Rewarding a child for the actions of their parents is nonsensical.

It's clearly discrimination and I suspect this will be one of the things that this generation of children will hold up as how cruel things were in their day... Like we do now.

I hate people's attitudes about this, like healthy children get some kind of reward just for being healthier, & sick or disabled children should be punished & excluded.

Ironic that sick & disabled children are already extremely likely to be excluded / left out/ alienated by the nature of the ill health they are unlucky enough to have... So for schools, teachers & other parents to put the boot in, well I think it's cruel & disgusting.

Pupils are, to a degree, in control of learning their own times tables- an increase in effort will likely yield better results.
To a very small degree at 6 years old, which is the age of my child to whom this applies. Children who are getting help at home, as we have been asked to do, will achieve better results than those who don't.

Children can raise money without parental input. They can design events, carry out sponsored silences etc. and collect money.
No. 6 year olds cannot do that out of school without parental input.

Parents should not be involved in homework at all- to suggest that a child is not in control of their own homework is simply incorrect.
No, it isn't. Any parent worth their salt will be involved to some extent with their child's homework, even if it is just encouraging them to do it. The point of homework at primary age is to encourage learning at school to be backed up at home. If you don't want parents to have anything to do with it then it must be done when parents are not around, i.e. in school time only, at which point it is no longer 'homework'. The fact is that if work is sent home to be done outside of school, then the school has no control over who has what amount of input into it. You may not think it is the ideal situation but to say it is incorrect is, quite simply, ... incorrect.

Not sure how the size of the school makes a difference. Perhaps this just shows how unsuccessful it is as a strategy to improve attendance. The attendance in my DD's primary remained unchanged when the policy was introduced and it clearly didn't improve much at those your DCs attend.

It clearly isn't reasonable to reward children for how often their parents read with them but at least those who succeed aren't all given a privilege en masse which highlights for all to see those whose parents don't care enough to do it.

You can't justify this ridiculous policy successfully by simply finding others which are just as daft.

DD2 is fumming at getting a letter for bad attendance. She didn't enjoy being ill, she didn't want an ear infection on top of a striking cold and she certainly didn't want to still be feeling tired and not her self at Christmas.

Actually I don't mean just as daft. I mean just as ill thought out but clearly not as harmful as those which actively discriminate against children for being ill or having a disability.

I think I need to get some sleep!

Homework is for children to complete, not parents. If a child is unable to complete it independently, it is set at the wrong level.

You did not specify that your school was rewarding children for their fundraising efforts outside of school. That seems a little strange, and is indeed rewarding parental input; therefore, it is rewarding children for the actions of their parents and is as absurd as attendance awards.

As for times tables, if children are really being rewarded only for work done on this outside of school, then I would question the fairness of that reward too.

Tethersend. I think you are deliberately trying to impose idealistic standards on some non-ideal real life examples I have given. I did not say parents were completing homework, although I'm sure some are. However, if homework is to be completed outside school time, the school has no control over how much help parents give. That may not suit you ideal viewpoint but it is fact. Some parents may say "well, it's your homework little Johnny, you get on with it." Others may say "Well why don't we see what we can find online, in the library, on our overstuffed bookshelves, to help you with this". Are the second parents wrong? My point is that schools can only control what happens inside school so that any reward for homework is naturally discriminatory.

The fundraising, specifically, was a reward for the class who raised the most for I can't remember which charity by bringing in their small change.

As for times tables, I didn't say children were being rewarded only for work done outside of school, did I.

However, my original point was that I, personally, don't think attendance rewards are that big a deal in the great scheme of things. Did I care that one child didn't get one and the other did? No. I was just bloody grateful to still have 2 children because I very nearly didn't. And happy that one had got something nice from school because they'd been through the mill too, even though they hadn't been ill.

And on that note, I'm off to bed.

"Are the second parents wrong?"

Yes. They are. Mind you, I don't think homework should be set at all.

Children should only be rewarded for actions within their control. To be rewarded for anything which isn't is absurd, makes a mockery of pupil achievement, is ineffective at best and discriminatory at worst.

Did I care that one child didn't get one and the other did? No.

I don't suppose many parents mind if their child doesn't have a chronic illness or disability which prevents them from ever getting one.

The children this system hurts are those who are already at a disadvantage in terms of accessing the curriculum and are therefore at a disadvantage in terms of receiving any award.

They are the ones who may already feel angry and resentful about the things they miss out on, stressed about the work they are constantly having to catch up on or maybe just hate the treatment they take this time off school for.

To then parade them in front of their peers as the group who haven't achieved an attendance target is, at best, thoughtless. It is punishing them for being ill or disabled.

If we are going to reward children for being lucky enough to be healthy shall we also reward those whose parents are married or those who don't qualify for free school meals? Maybe lets pick out the tallest or the best looking.

The wealthy, married parents of the tallest, best looking child would no doubt tell us that they are proud of what their DC has achieved and other children have the opportunity to be rewarded for best reader or best homework so they just need to get a grip.

Send child in in Mufti anyway and be uncontactable all day?

I'm at secondary so it is slightly different - it is more often the child who will make the decision to come to school / stay off. I think rewarding children who have good attendance is ok (if done right) but poor attendance should not mean being excluded from activities.

We don't give out certificates for good attendance but have a prize draw. All children with attendance over the required % get entered and the winner gets some book tokens. It works well as it highlights the importance of good attendance (although it is not 100% so takes into account that children get ill or may have something they have to attend on a school day). Also, the names of the children in the draw are not displayed so no humiliation.