To think school heads should be contactable in school holidays

[EloiseMinch]

A secondary head is likely to be on 70k+ and a primary head of 50k+. Those are high salaries for positions of senior management responsibility. AIBU to think they shouldn't just cut off completely in the school holidays?

Maybe some heads really are working in the holidays but I know the head at DC's school definitely doesn't. She is, for example, completely uncontactable from the end of one term to the start of the next.

Not necessarily @VickyEadie**

Entirely unlawful to exclude a child on the basis of their parents' behaviour. Entirely.

Does the Head respond to other parents during term-time?

How do you know they don't? Have you asked every single parent in your school, or just you little group of cronies?

In most cases a Head would on,y get involved if it was a serious issue. Maybe your problem just isn't serious enough and is actually being dealt with by others.

Many Heads are non teaching. They literally cannot do their job and teach a class as well. That is how it works.

*@SunShades@, that contract your husband allegedly makes parents sign is not worth the paper it's written on in law. If he excludes pupils for the reasons given, he is acting unlawfully. I wonder how happy the proprietors are about constantly paying for review hearings they can't win and having to pay out every time he has a hissy fit about reinstating pupils.

Sorry sun shades. That's bollocks

I'd have your husband in court to defend a failure to educate case before the ink was dry

I'd have your husband in court to defend a failure to educate case before the ink was dry

So supportive of teachers struggling to deal with idiotic or violent parents. Threats of violence are not OK, we should be allowed to refuse to teach them, for our own safety. And the law should back us. That's how it used to be.

They are entitled to a holiday and time off!

Used to be being the operative words

Follow the proper lawful process

Or don't and take the consequences

sunshades has been turning up on lots of threads lately and each time seems to be intent on being goady.

Whilst heated debate is quite common on MN everythread I've seen them on they've had all kinds of reasons they are powerful (wasn't one of them suggesting she'd get her legal team onto a landlord if she was a lodger?)

You can’t really mean that a school has no responsibility to respond to parents concerns about their children’s safety

Since the child in question is not in school for several weeks and neither are the perpetrators, there is no risk to their safety.

Any unsafe behaviour that might occur when the new school year starts in September can be dealt with then.

During the school holidays, parents are responsible for their children's safety and if they are unwilling/unable to carry out that responsibility there are other agencies who may be obligated to step in but School is not one of them. There will of course be a member of staff in school who can be contacted by the Police or Children's Services in regards to serious child protection concerns but even then, the most they would be able to do in the holidays is to share information as the child/children in question would not be in school for them to action anything.

Re sunshades comment on her DHs policy: utterly against the ethos of UK education, even if it was enforceable. It's hard enough for HTs to exclude a child on their own behaviour. What tosh.

This year, one of DH's senior staff who deals with behaviour and guidance has been contacted over 400 times by a parent who thinks she should be at her beck and call over every demand or concern she has about her son,

That's nearly twice a day for every school day! Is the parent mad or what?

That's bloody harassment frankly....

So supportive of teachers struggling to deal with idiotic or violent parents. Threats of violence are not OK, we should be allowed to refuse to teach them, for our own safety. And the law should back us. That's how it used to be.

Was it? When? (Withholds information about how long ago she trained and first started working as a teacher just for the sheer fun of it...)

My assumption is pre education act 2002

My assumption is pre education act 2002

Any head excluding a kid because s/he'd been mithered by a parent would have had the kid put straight back by the director of education pre-2002.

I'd been teaching 20 years by then...

AIBU?
Yes you are
but x y z.

I assumed she meant when they started having independent panels rather than the director deciding re instatement

But supposition and speculation

The school is shut and there is no one monitoring the school emails.

I bet they are, but they are probably only responding to stuff that it urgent and time-critical. I've known heads reply to emails about CP case conferences during the summer holidays, and been at those meetings when HTs have attended, too.

I was once emailed nearly 30 times in total by a parent re arrangements for a parent's evening. My Year Head Depute eventually phoned her and told her to pack it in. She did and was very apologetic - she's emailed a few times since but nothing to that extent! And I've had another parent I've had to have removed by the Campus Cop due to her aggressive behaviour at a meeting and I'll now only meet with her with a member of SLT present or nearby. It arose from the fact she had a complaint, rocked up to School reception and refused to leave until I spoke to her. I was teaching and she was so enraged by the time I got there 120 mins later (it was a double with my Seniors!). She used to do that frequently but hasn't since she was huckled out the establishment 😉 what the actual fuck are these people thinking? Do they rock up to their doctor or dentist or criminal defence lawyer and refuse to leave until they're seen? I'd doubt it very much.

It makes total sense when kids display such behaviours once you've met the parents. Thank goodness 99% of kids and their families are lovely, supportive of school and behave in a civilised fashion. Unfortunately it's the bonkers 1% who take up such a disproportionate amount of teachers' time.

Way back in the 70s the union would back any teacher who refused to teach a child who had assaulted or threatened to assault her. Also if she refused to teach the child of parents who had issued threats. If the entire staff refused to teach a violent child the LEA had to move them or home educate them.

It's time the unions grew some balls again.

In the 1950s the head could just expel a pupil if the parent was offering violence or if the child was violent. Out on their ears.

Such a shame that society doesn't back teachers any more.

StepBackNow

This thread is about a mithering parent, though...

LakieLady
My friend is a Head of Year. She had one parent who had tried to contact staff over 200 times in a 4-6 month period, something like that. Not sure on the details but from what she said it was awful. Something like, call A, email A, then call B about A hadn't replied, then contact C who is on SLT, C would arrange a meeting but home hadn't told C about A and B. Then in the meeting complain about 6 members of staff etv. Then call head. Then turn up demanding meetings.
Hearing her tale put me off pastoral moves for life.

StepBackNow, what is the relevance of exclusion for violence? SunShades was claiming that her husband would exclude for non-violent conduct of parents, which has been illegal for decades.

It's a shame isn't it? I think heads should be able to ban irritating parents from schools altogether. That can happen around here.

It should happen more often.

It's a shame isn't it? I think heads should be able to ban irritating parents from schools altogether. That can happen around here.

Oh, they can do that. It's their kids they can't ban.