UKC

My 14 year old daughter twisted her knee last weekend, she had a p.e lesson on Thursday but her knee was still pretty painful and as I didn't want her to add to the problem, I wrote a note explaining the situation to the teacher. Anyway, at lunchtime I received a call from my daughter telling me she had been given a detention, she went on to explain that the school policy states children who are not taking part in the p.e lesson must still get changed into their p.e kit just to sit and watch. i phoned the school and had a discussion with a rude woman who just said school policy a million times, and when I informed her my daughter would not be attending the detention,told me I would be called in for a meeting. Now I know there's a lot intelligent people on here, so I was wondering if anyone actually agrees with the policy, and could give me a good reason for it.

In reply to Wsdconst:
Ridiculous.

Typical of schools though. Most staff members can't wipe their arse without first asking permission of their line manager. Their line managers are unable to grant permission without first consulting their line manager. Obviously they can't make a decision without permission from God - otherwise known as the Head - and they are probably too busy with their internet shopping to return your calls and will tell their PA to tell you to ask to speak to the member of staff who made the decision in the first place.

When you call back to speak to them you find that they can't wipe their arse without first speaking to...

In reply to Wsdconst:
It could be the kids have to be in the gym so the PE teacher can keep an eye on them rather than take staff away from something productive to supervise those sitting out the PE class.

It could be that nobody allowed in the gym without getting changed, particularly no outdoor shoes.

Combine those two reasonable rules and you end up with "get changed & watch the PE class" policy.

In reply to Wsdconst:

Were you previously, or was your daughter, aware that was the school policy? If your daughter was, she should of had her PE kit.

It's a sensible idea from the school/PE department. Lots of ways a pupil can be involved in the lesson whilst injured- and getting them changed discourages the chancers- which can be the parents as well as pupil.

In reply to Morty:

Typical of schools, though.
Really?
What's typical of climbers, caravan owners, sheep farmers, punk fans?

In reply to Morty:

I'm with you on this, particularly as the woman was rude to you when you rang. Did she explain why it was "school policy" or was she just being a parrot?

In reply to Tom Valentine:


Generally they can think on their feet, and rebel against silly "rules"

In reply to Tom Valentine:


"What's typical of..."

Caravan owners go caravanning, punk fans go punking, climbers go climbing (when they aren't injured, skint or chatting bubbles on UKC) and sheep farmers...

Well, we've all heard the stories.

In reply to Wsdconst:

I don't agree with the policy. But it may have its reasons that I would accept.

I don't agreee with the detention. At all.

I would skip the meeting and instead write to the head asking why your child is being victimised as a result of an accident, and ask why the school is trying to waste your time when there is noting to discuss as you have clearly explained the situation. Also ask if you or she have ever been made explicitly aware of this policy before. I would also note you told her not to take her PE kit and question the harm done to your daughters confidence by punishing her for a decision you took. By "question" I mean explain that this is not an appropriate course of action. I would finish on a molyfying note that now you both are aware of the policy, you will in the future strictly adhere to it.

If the child has to go to the gym hall and sit on the side, at most they need gym shoes. If they are not doing activities and their shoes are clean, it really doesn't matter, does it?

I would also be concerned that gym shoes as required by her getting changed might not provide adequate support for her injury.

Mind you it's a valuable lesson for your daughter in how the bloody minded and unthinking following of rules by small minded administrati can mess with your life. The sooner she learns this, the more time she has to prepare for the rest of her life in the UK...

I am not looking forwards to Tree, Jr reaching school age as I have little to no truck with unthinking systems or people who will quote a rule without listening to the detriment of the individual concerned.

I also have no truck with people saying that the staff are doing thier best in a difficult job as an excuse for incidents like this. I teach and interact with hundreds of students a year and I would be ashamed of myself if I took the course of action you describe, and if I was a contact point for a parents queery I would handle it differently to how you describe.

One big caveat - I'm assuming your daughters representation of events is accurate and that she wasn't offensively rude to the staff etc. I have no reason to suspect she was from the description of events.

Up the system.

In short, giving someone detention for not knowing a policy is an affront to the very concept of western democracy and justice. No crime or negative act was commited.

In reply to gavmac:


No, nobody was aware of this policy. Involved in the lesson ? How exactly ? My wife had to help her to get dressed in the morning as her knee was quite stiff,so I totally disagree with making her get changed for the sake of it.

In reply to Wsdconst:
Maybe it's to stop people from pulling a sicky if they've forgotten kit?

I agree though, completely ridiculous. I'd send a polite email to the teacher explaining that she won't be doing the detention and that she didn't take her kit in because it seemed counter productive to carry it round all day with a knee injury. No need to give them a hard time.

Edit: Oh and if they try and invite you in for a telling off I'd be pretty blunt. It's ludicrous to ask someone to take time off work to discuss a PE kit.

In reply to Trangia:


No explanation given, she just repeated school policy again and again then swerved answering when I asked why. I just cannot think why this is even a thing.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:


Dont worry I'm not going to start a war, I just can't comprehend it, and can't let my daughter be punished for something so daft.

In reply to Wsdconst:

I'm sure you wouldn't.

I agree. Shows a lack of respect to the student IMO.

In reply to wintertree:

I can agree about the shoes, but if that was the problem she could have just taken her school shoes off and gone in bare foot. As far as being rude, my daughter suffers from selective mutism, which if you've never heard of it is basically extreme shyness, although now she's older she will talk to people,she would never have the conference to be rude or make herself stand out like that. It really upset her, as no one knew anything about this policy. Because of how she is, being singled out is her worst nightmare, and she would always try to avoid it.

In reply to Wsdconst:

Well there is definitely an issue if the school hadn't communicated that pupils should always have PE kit. Equally, if the staff were a bit shitty- that's not helpful.

Plenty injured pupils can do- sort teams out, time, referee etc. Of course, this would depend on the injury and teachers should exercise common sense- I appreciate that may not have happened here.

In reply to Wsdconst:

Thanks for sharing that.

With this in mind I would step back from my world war 3 grade rant above and would instead carefully write a short letter to the head explaining (1) how the chain of events has seriously distressed your daughter (2) that neither of you were aware of the policy and (3) that you feel the distress forced upon your daughter represents a failure of the school to make "reasonable adjustments" to accomodate her disability, and that this raises questions about the school's compliance with the Equality Act 2010.

The shorter the letter the less scope they have for wilful misunderstanding of it. I would ask a colleague of mine who works in an official capacity in terms of DDA/ES compliance to read it, if I didn't have that option I might seek professional assistance.

In this case "reasonable adjustments" constitute treating people as humans, which is the sad thing about this incident.

I deal with difficult cases involving people with a range of issues that make communication and discipline more sensitive than normal and I am acutely aware of their rights and my responsibilities under the DDA/EA. I am lucky to have full institutional support in using my initiative and in being flexible where needed to accommodate things.

Sorry, perhaps I haven't stepped back from WW3 after all.

I would definitely only deal with the head as I'm guessing few of the people you have spoken to have much understanding of the issues. If the letter comes from a solicitor and not you, all the better.

No doubt some people see this as causing trouble for the school. I see it as helping the school to understand their legal and ethical responsibilities in caring for vulunerable younglings. Top tip - arbitrary punishment is bullying and abusive, even before the DDA/EA angle is considered.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:


My kids's school requires you to still have your kit, I've always assumed for this reason.
They wouldn't expect you to change for a knee injury, but for some other injuries they would expect the child to get changed and do some lighter exercise.

You can rebel against the school rules if you like, but managing 1800 teenagers with 100 staff is probably easier with a bit of strictness.

In reply to Wsdconst:

I agree it's ridiculous. I've always supported the schools my daughter's attended, even where I've disagreed with them, but I think I would stick up for her with this and tell them she's not attending a detention.

Sitting in on the lesson, wearing gym shoes if necessary, I can completely understand.

In reply to stevieb:

Strictness is fine, but dynamic assessments of individual cases is better. The one size fits all approach doesn't work in a modern world with such diversity.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


The problem is since a new head has taken over there's been a policy overhaul, unfortunately these policies only come to light when someone is punished for not following them. I'm also supportive of things the school implement that I don't particularly agree with, but this one is just ludicrous.

In reply to Wsdconst:
Has your daughter attended the same secondary school since she was 11?
If so, in her three years at the school has she never witnessed how other injured pupils have been treated in regards to PE kit and detention?

In reply to wintertree:

I don't want to make a massive issue so my daughter is singled out, really I just want them to explain the reasoning behind it. If they can give me an absolutely fantastic answer that satisfies me, I'm happy to abide by it. Can't see that happening though tbh.

In reply to baron:

Yes she's attended the same school,It's a new policy apparently, a new head teacher was appointed recently and has put new policies in place( but forgot to inform anyone)

In reply to Wsdconst:
Seems like the school needs to admit it's mistake and apologise to your daughter.

In reply to Wsdconst:

Yeah, the rebel bit wasn't really in relation to your op.
I agree that the staff should be able to explain their rules; it gives you an understanding even if you don't agree with their view.
Also, I don't question your right to refuse the detention.
But I think they are actually under more pressure to have a one size fits all start point in a diverse world to avoid a sense of victimisation.

In reply to Wsdconst:


If, as a result of you queering their decisions, they take further punitive action against your daughter, they are likely breaking the law if we assume the Equalities Act applies.


I think this is a very measured approach - far less nuclear than mine. Although as well as asking for the reasoning, it does no harm to explain clearly how their actions interacted with your daughter's specifics to cause her great distress.

In a sense understanding the reasoning is irrelevant - it changes nothing that has already happened, and you already know what to do to stop it happening again. However, helping the school to understand about her needs could help her in the future.

In reply to Wsdconst:

Ok well as a school Governor who sits on the policies committee I can tell you that our Head cannot simply put in new policy without them being approved through a formal process.

This one sounds odd and we certainly don't have anything like it. It comes across as impractical and unnecessary.

You do have an option to approach the Chair of Governors and challenge this. It's worth escalating.

In reply to Wsdconst:

The people who were responsible for the rule being broken were you and your partner by not supplying PE kit. However , since you had not been informed that this was required you should stand your ground, write to the Headmistress explaining that you, not your daughter are responsible, and that she failed in her duty to notify you of the rule change. Escalate it to the Governors if she insists on punishing your daughter for inadvertently breaking a rule that she has failed to notify parents of.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Might also be worth pointing out that this rule could cause actual harm to an injured child, as distinguished from one who is simply a bit off colour, in which case perhaps the head could explain whether it would be the school or the person making the rule who would be liable?

In reply to Wsdconst:


No, and I am not academias greatest fan. But running a school is complex enough without some barrack room lawyer challenging everything little thing.
Just go along with it, whats the big deal, let the school focus on what it should focus on. If it bothers you that much join the Governors.

In reply to J1234:
Having a rule that could cause pain or further injury to an injured child could clearly lead to liability if enforced zealously without regard to the circumstances - remember that the school has to act in loco parentis. (Barrack room Law qualification, Durham 1977)

In reply to wercat:

Putting a PE kit on could cause further pain and injury. Yes sure. Its a twisted knee here thats is pretty painful, not a bomb victim with multiple burns. Just another person who does not like being told what to do.

In reply to Wsdconst:

We had similar problems with our oldest sprog's school and its policy. It was winter, the kid had just been off with whooping cough and was still pretty weak, we wanted them to go back because they had missed a lot of school, but they had PE and the policy was for the sick kids to change into rather thin PE top and skort and stand by the touch line for an hour while the rest played hockey. They would have been frozen and been off coughing again the next day. At the same time the school was hassling us that their attendance was now under the threshold and sanctions would be taken if they missed any more days. Plus they had to compulsorily attend 'catch-up club' in the evenings because their attendance was poor. Ok in theory but they had done all the work set while they were off, and they didn't give them other work so it was in practice detention by another name, not great to have a long school day when still convalescing .
After many cross conversations I think the PE policy got changed so if the kid had special permission they could go to the library.

In reply to Wsdconst:

Is a full written version of School Policy, including this Rule, freely available to all parents?

In reply to Wsdconst:

Sounds like the joys of the UK's Victorian schooling. You get detention for not needlessly changing into sports kit, to then stand still for an hour. Somethings are just hard to make up. Even more so that she has to attend extra lessons to catch up. Even an idiot would see she could use that PE hour to sit in the library and do the extra work. Two birds with one stone.

In reply to Wsdconst:

I can hazard a guess as to why the policy exists...

Lots of kids will claim they can't do PE, with a whole spectrum of excuses...
a) Entirely fictitious ailments (sometimes invented precisely because they've forgotten their kit)
b) Genuine but minor ailments which aren't actually a problem
c) Ailments that they think stop them participating at all but actually can be worked around by avoiding specific activities
d) Something that genuinely prevents all participation

Would you like to guess which of those categories is the least common? However, every kid in the first three categories will genuinely believe, or claim to believe, that they're in category d. Because they've already decided they can't possibly do PE, they'll have left their PE kit behind. Thus, when the PE teacher tells them they can actually take part despite having a bit of a runny nose, they play their trump card of having no kit. Obviously, there has to be a consequence for this because otherwise every kid who hates PE would be skipping it every week. So the school institutes a rule that every kid brings their PE kit, regardless of what excuses they think they might have. (Bear in mind also that some parents will let themselves be pressured into writing notes for kids in the first three categories.)

Yes, your daughter's "get-out-of-PE-card" was legitimate and there's a decent case for letting her off but as soon as the school starts letting some kids get away with breaking the rule without consequence, they'll have a different group of angry parents ranting at them. "Well she didn't get a detention last week, how was little jimmy with the sniffles supposed to know that he still needed his kit?!"

At the end of the day, whilst I can understand your grumpiness, the detention will be a pretty minor issue. It's not worth souring the relationship between the school and you/your daughter. I sincerely hope the guy mentioning letters from solicitors had his tongue firmly in his cheek.

In reply to Luke90:

I agree with the points you make, it's the fact that no one was aware of this rule in the first place, I messaged a few parents yesterday just to ask if they knew anything about in case I'd missed a letter that had been sent out or something, and not one person had any idea about it.

In reply to Chris Harris:

Yes, I've been informed its on the website, the mean woman I spoke to informed me of this I between saying school policy two hundred and fifty times. I thought, since this is the fourth year my daughters attended the school, I was well aware of most of the rules, and not knowing of any changes, never thought to check.

In reply to J1234:


Now we know about it, we will make sure she has her p.e kit with her. I think this is the first lesson she's actually ever missed to be honest. Joining the governors isn't possible at the moment unfortunately, but I would consider it if my circumstances changed.

In reply to Trangia:

You don't find Morty's denigration of a worthwhile profession a bit iffy, then?

In reply to Tom Valentine:

No, I found the fact that the school representative to whom he spoke was rude to him "a bit iffy", as you put it. I can well understand his anger and frustration at the situation.

In reply to Trangia:

Unless I'm wrong , it was Wsdconst who had the original issue with the school and his daughter's treatment.

A second commentator (Morty) then joined in with the generalisation "Typical of schools, though. Most staff members can't wipe their arse without asking permission from their line manager".

Re read the first two posts then tell me what you think about the comments of Morty, someone who has no more involvement in the original incident than you or me.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

No, you are right, I'm wrong. I got the OP and Morty confused, and hence have been addressing my posts to the wrong person.

In reply to Trangia:

Easily done

In reply to Tom Valentine:

If you read my post again you will see that I am not critical of the profession - I am critical of the crypto-fascist structures in place in many schools today. I love teachers. I love many of them, my wife in particular. Many people have also commented that I love myself, so that's at least two teachers that I love on a daily basis. However, I don't love the way that schools have developed a managerial culture based on fear and paranoia.

It is this culture that is to blame for the automatons the OP had to deal with.

In reply to Wsdconst:

Let use know what happens,I'm intrigued.

In reply to Morty:

Followed your advice and read your post again. Sorry but I probably interpreted "can't " as meaning "are not willing" when you seem to have meant "are not allowed".
My mistake.

In reply to Wsdconst:
I agree it's a bit silly (though I could understand a rule that indoor trainers had to be worn in the gym rather than outdoor shoes). However, why did she not just comply? Schools are always like that, TBH.

Edit: Sorry, missed the post about getting changed being painful. Did she explain that to them?

In reply to J1234:
"I wrote a note explaining the situation to the teacher. Anyway, at lunchtime I received a call from my daughter telling me she had been given a detention, she went on to explain that the school policy states children who are not taking part in the p.e lesson must still get changed into their p.e kit just to sit and watch. i phoned the school and had a discussion with a rude woman who just said school policy a million times"

Just tell me where a parent in this situation has not behaved Fairly and Reasonably. It would also be fair an reasonable for someone on the Clapham Omnibus to think that this plus the injury would make taking gymn kit pointless and unnecessary where it was not practical to comply with the normal requirement. An injury making it painful or difficult to change is an "exceptional" circumstance (ie an exception to normal circumstances) and therefore the school was acting unreasonably and not with the the child's welfare in mind (its duty) in issuing the detention.

(Nota Bene the need for parental help in getting dressed in the morning!)

This is of course assuming truth in the original post but the facts as quoted we have to assume if we are to discuss the case at all - I have no reason to doubt the OP)

In reply to wintertree:


And yet if you're doing 40 in a 30 zone, because you didn't see the sign you'd still get fined, and no doubt expect to do so.

In reply to krikoman:

an entirely different scenario in which government has legislated and parliament has considered measures for public safety

In reply to wercat:


OK what about turn up to school at all, (to get away from the driving analogy) it's hardly a safety issue, but you can still be fined for not making you child go.

I'm in two minds, being a bit of a rule breaker with a natural dislike of authority.

But if a school has rules then not following them is a bit strange TBH.

What about uniform, should they wear what they like, if you don't agree with their policy?

Take that to an extreme and you get people not turning up at all.

This is from someone (me) who doesn't agree with not taking holidays in term time, but if there are rules, NOT knowing them doesn't mean you get a free pass.

I would hope you'd get a warning first, but ignorance is not freedom to do as you wish.


To the OP I agree with your stance.

In reply to krikoman: If you don't see the sign, then expect the fine.

However if the sign is missing, then if you pay some lawyer enough, they will no doubt get you off on a technicality.

In reply to Michael Hood:


True, but schools usually give out copies of their policies to parents, so it's usually something you've not read.

It would be nice if common sense prevailed in most cases, especial when I got caught doing 35 in a 30, which had come down from 40 but the sign was at the traffic lights, which was the thing you concentrated on.

In reply to Wsdconst:

Since when did detention have anything to do with doing something wrong? They're just a lesson in being deferent to authority

In reply to Wsdconst:

You will not help your daughter one bit by getting into a personal pissing contest with her school.

In reply to krikoman:


I guess if you were doing 29 you could have focused on more then one thing. Crazy idea, but perhaps the 30 limit had a purpose?

In reply to summo:

Since I was turning right at the lights I came to a standstill so doing 29 wouldn't have helped, it would probably have been more dangerous.

It probably did have a purpose, I'm not questioning that, though it was in a rural setting, and a copper friend of mine told me it was one of the most lucrative spots for catching speeders.

A short stretch of road between to other roads both of which were 50 mph, without any additional housing or pedestrians.

the point being, because I didn't know, doesn't mean I was let off, but you knew that.

In reply to Wsdconst:
I don't know what kids do in PE lessons nowadays but I guess they still have to attend them even if they're sitting on the side and watching.

From participating in various sports clubs I see often that half the battle is getting your kit on and a lot of the 'too ill' to take part is psychological. Once changed and in a supportive environment most people will get on with it.

So that's another reason to encourage pupils to get changed.

You're then in a situation where you can't have exceptions to rules. Everyone has to get changed.

The only real issue here is the detention for a first offence for a rule she says she is unaware of.

I'd call the headmaster, it seems pointless to waste your and their time in this trivial matter. Tell him there has been a lack of communication and would like the detention dropped and assure them that it won't happen again. If he refuses to drop the detention, then ask for a copy of the letter he sent home to all parents with the new rule highlighted, otherwise you will be raising the matter with the governors.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

First a policy is just that, a policy. Not law, a policy is guidance for those situations where thought is deemed unnecessary.

Second, rules Can have exceptions in exceptional (ie outside the the norm, for which the rule is imposed). Not to have exceptions for exceptional circumstances is a sign of a regime that is neither fair nor reasonable.

In reply to Wsdconst:

Back in my day you were made to referee or sit on the side lines and do your homework if you couldn't participate in P.E.

In reply to wercat:

What is exceptional in this case?

In reply to Luke90:


If a parent who is not in the habit of writing notes at the drop of hat asks for their child to be excused PE then why would a PE teacher feel that they have the right to overide the parents wishes?

In reply to timjones:

I think the important thing you mentioned was that the school has a new head, they are busy stamping their authority and doing change for changes sake, I've seen it at my children's primary school, then at my daughter's secondary and my son's secondary.

At my daughter's school if a child has clear parental permission to miss PE/sports then they can spend the time in the medical room.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I think the fact that the child cannot dress themselves because of the injury makes it pretty exceptional. However that may not have been communicated in the note, as it seems the new rule had not been communicated to parents. Any policy should be flexible enough to accommodate genuine reasons why the policy cannot be adhered to, the problem here appears to be the response when the OP spoke to the school.

In reply to timjones:


Firstly, because some children have their parents wrapped around their little finger and acquire notes for ridiculous reasons.

Secondly, because the parents don't know what's happening in PE that day and don't know what adjustments the teacher could make to help their child still participate.

In reply to Luke90:


I would suggest that a good teacher should know exactly which children are in the habit of acquiring notes for ridiculous reasons.

In the case of a child that is obviously not in the habit of doing this then no teacher should be ignoring the parents request on the grounds that they think they know the child better than the parents.

In reply to Wsdconst:


If I had to guess I'd suspect if it may be to dissuade teenage kids from ducking out of PE for reasons of shyness/body conscience/religious modesty/bullying.

Probably best you ask the school to explain the policy though if you want to understand it.
jk

In reply to timjones:


Well, yeah, obviously.


It's not about knowing the child better than the parents and I've never said so. It's about knowing what activity the children are doing and how it can be adjusted. Both key pieces of information that the parent doesn't have access to. There are lots of injuries that a reasonable parent might write a note about which don't preclude all participation but would require variation in the amount or the type of activity. That has to be a judgement for the teacher because the parent doesn't know the planned activity.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


(1) The child's selective mutism and the effect arbitrarily punishing them for their parents decision has had on them because if it.

(2) The circumstances clearly being unusual for this child

(3) The cause of the incident being with someone other than the child (school and/or parent depending on the clarity of their communication of the policy change).

Even less acceptable given the school's apparent failure to communicate the policy change to parents.

Concerning point (1) above - hence my comments about the school not making "reasonable adjustments" as per the Equalities Act 2010.

In reply to wintertree:

Well, we don't know how the PE teacher approached the girl or how the girl reacted as we weren't there.

As far as I can see, she had a bad knee that made getting changed difficult.

No special treatment needed.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

I suggest you re-read all of the posts the parent made in response to me and then reconsider. The detention was clearly inappropriate in this case and had a direct and significant upsetting effect on the student as a direct result of their disability - not their injury.

In reply to Timmd:


Spoke to the head of year today, it seems the policy is actually detention for forgetting to bring your kit and trying to get out of it without providing a valid note( my wife informed me she also rang the school in the morning too) and the p.e teacher has misinterpreted It. The head teacher agreed that the punishment was wrong, and would be sending a memo to the p.e dept.

In reply to Wsdconst:

Ah, cool, thought it sounded weird.

In reply to wintertree:

I have.

And it's all been sorted properly by phone without resorting to solicitors letters invoking the human rights act and imprisoning half the teaching staff.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I see it is sorted now. This doesn't excuse the school for not making reasonable adjustments for the individual concerned, but it is good that other flaws in procedure were identified and rectified and the parent has a good understanding instead of someone being rude to them.

You are not convincing me that you've actually read anything I've said. D- for reading comprehension. Much easier for you to wilfully misinterpret what I wrote and spout crap rather than to comment on the actual points I raised.

Silly me expecting a school to be aware of their obligations towards people with disabilities.

In reply to wintertree:
As a human being I have sympathy with the parent and pupil.
As a retired teacher my first thought was 'It didn't take her long to phone her parents to complain'.
I realise that this makes me a bad person.

In reply to wintertree:


In what capacity do you 'deal' with them?

The Disability part of the Equality Act only applies to long term conditions, not when you get a bit of an ouchie.

Schools are losing teachers for a variety of reasons, parents like the one you fantasise you'd be is one of them. If you want teachers to get the best out of your kids then you're going to have to learn some new skills.

In reply to winhill:

I teach them in groups of various sizes and individually, in a range of different environments. I mark their work. I advise them. I deal with issues of discipline.


Someone else who has apparently not read the OPs responses to me.


One of the reasons I suggested going straight to the head and not the other teachers.


If you want teachers to get the best out of children you should ensure they have the skills, confidence and freedom of choice to excercise policy in a way that doesn't overly upset and basically bully disabled students.

In reply to baron:


The other 99 out of 100 cases I would agree with your bad-person thoughts.

In reply to Wsdconst:

I think the policy is to make skipping PE less attractive to kids that are fine for PE and you need to apply it across the board to make it work. Pros and cons but it's not an unreasonable policy - certainly not so unreasonable that a patent should be picking and choosing whether it applies to their kid.

Even if it is a bit unfair for your daughter, I reckon she should still do the detention... sometimes life's unfair/kids are spoilt these days.

Also, re rude teacher. Is it possible you let your views on the policy slip into your tone of voice? It sounds like you were outraged by this before you called.

Not a teacher myself, but my dad was and friends are. The pish they have to out up with from parents is ridiculous - obviously no idea if that applies to you here.

In reply to baron:

I don't think that makes you a bad person at all. My first reaction was "spoilt brat", which I realise probably isnt true and actually does make me a bad person

In reply to edwardgrundy:

After teaching in both, my Mum found private school parents to be the worst, in checking up on everything and picking up on small details, like teachers doing the wrong thing by mistake and setting a stain into a school cardigan for example. When they can afford the term fees, buying a new school cardigan isn't going to cause a crisis for a parent.

In reply to wintertree:


Come on mate. It's a single detention!

In reply to Timmd:

Yeah, my dad taught at private school and some of the stories of excuses for kid not to do detention are hilarious. Mates that gave taught at various state schools say the posher ones are worse for this.

In reply to edwardgrundy:


I am close to giving up.

If you upset someone as badly as the OP described as a direct (even if unintentional) result of not accounting for a known disability you are victimising them in a descriminatory way that contradicts equality law.

It's not the fact it's a single unwarranted detention, it's the effect it has.

In reply to wintertree:

I suspect your job and experiences are causing you to focus on the side issue that she has a slight impediment.

She has a bad knee, she didn't know the rule, she got upset. The dad got angry because his daughter was upset.

A lack of communication has spiralled into a thread about abusing disabled people.

Classic UKC.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


If you mean my job involves training and professional development in the area then absolutly.


She was punished in a way that really upset her because of her disability (selective mutism). Neither you nor I are fit to judge if it is slight or not, and were I the teacher involved I would err on the side of caution - it's a massive red flag to the default choice of unthinking following of punitive rules.

If the teacher can't even get their own school's rules right then my hopes for them applying the actual rules with thought in cases like this is low.


I don't see the dad being angry; I see him canvassing and acknowledging a wide variety of views in a genuine way.


Depresssingly I agree entirely. A disappointing number of people are advocating ignoring a disability for mindless reasons related to mindless following of authority etc or because life is unfair.

In reply to wintertree:

Nobody is ignoring the disability.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


You yourself said


That is despite the parent stating clearly how upset the child was as a result of the combination of their treatment and their disability.

So I respectfully suggest that you yourself are ignoring it because of your preconceived ideas about this area. This is also apparent from you classifying it as a "minor impedement" without sufficient evidence. You could argue the same about my line of resoning but it is wise to err on the side of caution and the posters description of ethe effects also weighs in here.

I could be wrong, neither you nor I nor other posters disagreeing with me have the facts to decide. None have the facts to justify writing off this line with facile views like I have seen on here about life being unfair, parents causing trouble, children being spoilt etc. I am genuinely saddened by some of the responses.

In reply to wintertree:

I missed the comment where selective mutism was mentioned.

I get quite bad social anxiety myself sometimes, so I really feel for the girl and her family. I'm not sure it's victimisation or discrimination though - to my mind that needs intent

In reply to Morty:
That's a deeply ill informed response. Do you read the Daily Mail?

In reply to Wsdconst: if it is the policy it's a very stupid one. The correct thing to do if a pupil/student cannot take part in PE is to give them something educationally useful, preferably PE/Health and fitness related to do during the lesson time. OFSTED would not be that impressed by a policy which involved a child just watching.

In reply to Luke90:

Are PE teachers really well enough trained to make judgements on how far to push a very recent injury?

I can't see things ending well if they get it wrong and seriously aggravate the injury.

Why not just respect parents wishes once in a blue moon?

In reply to edwardgrundy:

Thanks for your post.


Victimisation - a woolly concept I should probably not have used, and that could well depend on intention.

Discrimination - intent is not required, negligence is sufficient. A system that fails to account for disability is in trouble under the Equality Act 2010, unless the system can demonstrate that to accommodate the disability would not be possible by "reasonable adjustment". Most cases of failing to do so are unintentional rather than deliberate.

In reply to GarethSL:


In my day if you tried to bunk off PE you were rounded up by the school leopard.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:
'If' being the operative word. Guessing

In reply to timjones:


You're putting words in my mouth. I haven't said anything about it being a good idea to push a recent injury. Firstly, depending on the nature of any injury, there could be plenty of things a student could do that don't involve pushing it at all. Not even necessarily particularly active things, just remaining involved in the lesson. Secondly, notes get written for reasons other than injury.


Obviously not, which is a responsibility that teachers take on all the time in all kinds of situations and take very seriously. You keep talking as if I'm suggesting that PE teachers should ignore all notes and make students dance on recently broken limbs. Sensible notes written for sensible reasons will be and should be listened to and respected.


Because, as I keep saying and you keep ignoring, the parent writing the note doesn't have the information about the activities planned for the lesson. You seem to think I'm suggesting that's always going to mean ignoring the parent which isn't my point at all. Let's say a child is recovering from an illness and has only just returned to school. They're still feeling pretty delicate that morning so their parent, picturing a game of rugby in the lashing rain, reasonably writes them a note excusing them from PE. By the time PE comes around in the afternoon, the child is feeling quite a bit better and it turns out they're scheduled to be in the sports hall anyway. After a chat with the child, the PE teacher suggests that they join in doubles badminton, playing mostly in a fairly static position but still learning some skills. If they get too tired, they can switch to refereeing (or whatever the correct term is for Badminton). Does that sound unreasonable to you?

In reply to Wsdconst:

In my experience, as a former schools outdoor education adviser, many schools have a real difficulty with students who don't like PE. These students will persuade parents to write notes to excuse them on false premises, or regularly forget PE kit etc. I sure your daughter's school has some of these students. So the school sets policies that make it less easy for these students to play the system which, for consistency, they then must enforce for everyone.

If your daughter is willing, I would suggest that she attends the detention, but that you also demand the meeting, at which you can discuss, hopefully with the Head of PE or the Head teacher, how you and your daughter felt unfairly treated. It could be a useful meeting on both sides. If she doesn't attend the detention the meeting will probably be less productive with both sides on the defensive. At 14, it's really her decision whether to attend, but I'm sure you'll be able to talk to her about it.

There may be a few people on here who think that PE should not be a compulsory subject at all, but I hope most agree that it should.

Martin

In reply to Luke90:


Yes.

If I found out that I'd explicitly sent a notification to my daughter's school that she hadn't been well and wasn't to take part in PE and then the gym teacher over-rode my wishes then yes I'd be well pissed off.

It may be the case that the teacher knows more about the class that they're going to be teaching that particular day but the parent is far more likely to know more about the child than a teacher who might have 100's of kids flowing through their department on a weekly basis.

Refereeing from the sidelines (presumably not running around) or other simple activities might be reasonable but making them take part when the parent has explicitly said "no" is just wrong.

In reply to Martin Hore:

Rather than, for example, looking how to improve PE so more kids do like it.

I hated it up to and including year 9 when it was rugby in the winter (I'm built for it but I can't throw/catch so I'm useless at it) and cricket in the summer (same issue, but add can't hit a ball either). The only bit I recall getting anything out of was that we also did the odd bit of athletics, and I recall the achievement of being dragged puffing and panting around the 1500m by the better of the two PE teachers, which was maybe a precursor of me getting into running properly in my early 30s

From year 10 there was a choice of activities, and so I enjoyed it a lot more.

Offer a choice at all levels, and kids will engage more. How, for example, about climbing as an option?

Or take your unfit slightly podgy kids, and put them through Couch to 5K? Might have got me into running far, far earlier?

Or even "boot camps" and the likes?

The problem with school PE is that 99% of it concentrates on the already fit kids at the expense of those who would really benefit from it. And watching the already fit kids with ball skills be good at stuff can be really quite off-putting.

In reply to edwardgrundy:


It wasn't a comment on the poshness as such, more the capacity to be pernickerty (sp) from parents who were paying..

In reply to Martin Hore:

I agree it should be compulsory BUT as mentioned above there should be a wider choice of activities at all ages.

Some of us don't have the co-ordination to be any good at ball sports, and thus found the whole thing depressing when forced to play ball sports. I just spent the whole thing wishing I was as good as the good kids. Not great for self-esteem, particularly when added to being called fat by a few of them. (Funny thing - by 2017 standards I wasn't fat at all, it's just that most kids were skinny as a waif in the 1980s/early 90s).

Yet in my 30s I'm a pretty solid middle of the road distance runner (and near enough exactly the same build as I was back then, too, just scaled up quite a lot), and a fairly average climber. I think I could have been at school, too, if someone had spent the time to try to drag it out of me!

In reply to Neil Williams:

Hi Neil

I agree with just about everything you say re the way to motivate children to enjoy PE. In my experience many schools are quite good at this but not all. Variety is critical with lots of alternative options for children to be challenged and succeed, especially those not motivated by traditional team games.

That was one of my main reasons for promoting outdoor adventure activities with schools. Lots of physical activities that often motivate different children to those who are good at the traditional PE activities. But not every school can include eg climbing on its curriculum of course.

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:


It should be a core subject. Exercise, team sports and individual motivation are great life skills, regardless of individual ability. A report at 16 saying you were an active participant should be viewed on the same level as getting a C or above in certain subjects. It might go some way to countering many of physical and mental health problems people have in life.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Would agree there, we had a football obsessed head (he was 50/50 between teaching and going pro in the 60s ), so until age 11/12 sport was only ever football. Rain, shine, snow, ice... strangely enough I now detest the sport.

In reply to summo:
I don't think I'd hate it if I was any good at it - I just have utterly terrible co-ordination and quite slow reactions so couldn't throw or catch if my life depended on it. I'll happily go running or doing outdoor bootcamps and the likes in any weather that happens to be going on at the time.

I think when I was at school it wasn't recognised just how big a hit on self-esteem and fitness was caused by kids being forced to take part in something they were never likely to be any good at. You can improve motor skills to an extent by practice (driving hugely helped for me), but not enough to make me actually good at ball sports. On the other hand, self esteem can be boosted massively[1] by finding the sports you as an individual are good at and encouraging their pursuit, and so school PE really needs to try hard to do that for each individual - there will be something, and it won't necessarily be obvious! (If you looked at me you'd say I was built as a rugby player, not a climber or runner).

[1] I'd say that finally finding mine (in my 30s) massively boosted my self image, certainly. As a kid I'd imagine even more so.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Variety is key. Here in our lads year 3 (Aged 9 to 10) there have an year long after school sports club organised by the school, every Wednesday evening. They are doing a different sport or activity for 3 weeks then change to another. So far they have done archery, dance, running (as in athletics), last week of tennis tomorrow and on it goes to October. The sports are led from people from the respective local club, who have the skills to coach and at the end of each phase they get info on what to do if they want to do more or join that specific club.

In reply to Martin Hore:

Surely it is the teachers job to inspire the pupils rather than hide behind the fact that PE is compulsory?

Where a child is obviously fit and active I can see no reason to force them to take part in activities that don't inspire them.

In reply to summo:


Quite.

I think a lot of people have a false impression of what PE lessons are now. Probably based on their childhood PE lessons 20-30 years ago.

In reply to Wsdconst:

How can a twisted knee OK enough to walk around school and sit at a desk make it too difficult to get changed? I'm pretty sure putting on and off trousers / shorts / netball skirt only involve the knee being bent in a normal backwards and forwards direction. Even if it makes getting changed without help impossible, there's 2 dozen other girls in the changing room that can help her. What sport would she have been doing in PE?

In reply to Toerag:

But what is the point of paying lip service to getting changed if you are not fit to take part? It's utterly pointless. And, in the case of a knee injury, could exacerbate the injury; having recently injured my knee, I know I had to take care when showering, dressing and undressing, due to the need to stand on one leg, with the resulting potential loss of balance. Any such loss of balance, needing me to quickly adjust body posture or put my bad leg down, risked further injury.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:


Why is it ill-informed?

In reply to Toerag:

You ever tried balancing one leg with an injured knee while trying to remove fitted trousers ? it's more the pointlessness of getting changed for no reason though.

there's 2 dozen other girls in the changing room that can help her.
I don't think many teenage girls would be comfortable with that to be honest.

What sport would she have been doing in PE?
Net ball

In reply to timjones:


I think the majority of "obviously fit and active" children do get inspired by and succeed at PE. It's the obviously unfit ones that tend to be put off, yet need it the most.

I think it's as important that PE is compulsory as it is that any of the core subjects are compulsory. Would you say the same thing for, say, maths or English? Which doesn't mean that teachers shouldn't try to inspire their students of course.

Martin

In reply to Morty:
What evidence do you have that what you say is typical of most schools or most teachers? I have been in education for nearly 20 years and I am a deputy head and whilst I'd agree there could be some schools might fit your profile I can see no justification for your generalisation. Even in this case, do you know what the reaction of all the other teachers/staff would have been in this incident? One or two jobsworths don't characterise a whole profession.

In reply to Wsdconst:

We used to have benches in our changing rooms that you could sit on.

I guess things must have moved on since then.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:


You're probably in a good position to comment on whether the school's policy, as reported, is sensible. What do you think?

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

If only it was "one or two jobsworths" causing the problem. I only have fifteen years working in education (and I'm not a deputy head) so I suppose I should defer to your wisdom. However, I will not as my experience, and the experience of many friends and colleagues in a variety of different educational settings, is quite different.

And if one can't generalise on UKC...

In reply to Morty:

I like the cut of your jib!

In reply to captain paranoia:

I think it is a very poor policy. I work in primary education and I have always endeavoured to ensure children are engaged in some productive capacity if they can't take part in PE. I think if the policy is to discourage 'skiving' out of PE lessons then it is a pretty poor solution. I can totally see why secondary age children might not wish to do PE, it was like that when I was at school 34 years ago and is still the same now.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

Do pupils still get a shower after PE?
In my time as a pupil you got shower, no option.
In my time as a teacher, covering PE lessons, the showers seemed redundant and a quick squirt of Lynx on your jumper seemed to suffice.
I imagine things have got worse - do they actually fit showers into new build schools?

In reply to Tom Valentine:

From what I understand they don't. Just a shower in a can. Certainly my older boys, the last who left high school in 2012, never showered at school.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:


Quite a few schools where I am now have a combination of communal showers and a few doorless cubicles for the shy. They are conditioned into showering though from age 6/7. And communal shower / toilet facilities at big running and orienteering events are the norm, so I don't think many kids even consider it an issue.

I know of some small dales schools that have nothing in terms of facilities, lessons only in their assembly hall and always just before kids go home. Pretty sad really.

In reply to Wsdconst:

Tell them you won't attend the meeting as its against your policy.

In reply to summo:

I would hope you are right in thinking that showers are not an issue but my experience has been otherwise.

In reply to summo:


Our school avoided the main "shyness" issue by making us bring swimming trunks for the shower. I wonder do any still do that?

This country is bonkers.

Just get your kit off and get in the shower. What kind of people are we bringing up?

In reply to Martin Hore:


Hopefully things have changed in the last 35 years, but when I was at School I was easily as fit and active as any of the PE teachers "golden boys" and absolutely none of that fitnees came from the godawful efforts of the PE staff.

If the aim of PE is to ensure that children are fit and active then I can see no reason to make it compulosry for kids that are fit and taking part in excercise in other areas of their life. All it does is artificially boost the popularity if a few chosen sports.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


The post was about an after school club, not about lessons during the school day.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Certainly not in Sweden. If you go to the local pool you shower naked before putting swim wear on. Less chemicals needs to keep pool clean etc.

In reply to summo:

I know Sweden is less prudish than the UK, but surely showering with swimwear on pre swim is more effective as it'll wash any residual detergent out etc.

In reply to Neil Williams:


I think the presumption is the clothing will be clean anyway. But they want the bacteria, dirt etc washed off the body.

In reply to timjones:

Agree with this, but I also can't see the point of making it compulsory for kids that don't like sport either. Not unless PE has changed beyond recognition from when I did it.
When I was 14, 33 years ago, PE was pointless misery standing in shorts on a freezing muddy field while the kids that actually liked football played a game. The rest of us got no excercise, and all I learned was a bitter hatred of competitive sport in any shape or form.
In the end I just stopped going to PE, and after a couple of half-hearted attempts the school gave up trying to make me.
Rather than compulsory PE, what's required to get kids living an active life is activities that they actually want to do. And to get back to the OP, the school concerned appears to have completely failed on this point.

In reply to Hooo:

We never played football during PE. Usually it was a couple of laps of the field followed by some kind of circuits.

Wednesday afternoons were 'Games' afternoon where you took part in your chosen sport. Football/Rugby/XCountry or Cricket/Athletics/softball/Tennis, also there were inside sports like basketball, badminton, trampolining, table tennis etc.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Did you really perceive a difference between PE and games?

I always thought it was a trick to con the slow of thinking into excercising

In reply to Hooo:

Having taught for 36 years, I can assure you that even when pupils are offered a winter term including a diverse choice of rugby/hockey, cross-country, trampolining, ice skating, squash, badminton, weights/gym, table-tennis, dance and yes, even climbing, there was what I would describe as a depressing number of pupils who would do their utmost to avoid any physical activity.

Those who did exercise would also studiously avoid the showers!

In reply to DancingOnRock:

What's the difference between PE and games? We only had one lesson a week, which was called PE and seemed to mostly involve team ball sports - ie. What you would call games.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

I think any choice at all, especially a choice to do something non-competitive, would have persuaded me to attend PE.
I understand there are always people who hate physical activity, but does making it compulsory help them? Short of frogmarching them round a field at bayonet point, what can you do to actually make them excercise hard enough to do any good?

In reply to Hooo:

We had gym and outdoor sports when I was a kid in the 60s & 70s.
I presuming it's all indoor PE these days because schools had to sell off all their playing fields in the 80s onwards.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:


Thanks!

In reply to Hooo:


I thought of myself as a kid who didn't like sport. This wasn't the case, I just didn't like football, rugby and most bits of athletics.

If they opened up more choices I think they would find a physical activity to suit most kids.

In reply to Hooo:


Any exercise is better than no exercise.

In reply to Hooo:


PE was a class lesson during the week.

Games was a Wednesday afternoon of sport. This continued into University. Different schools/universities would travel and play other schools at team sports. Every class from 4th year up did games and PE. Nowadays that would be years 10-13 I think.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Yes. I hated/hate football with a passion. Finding a sport that you like is quite hard to do. It requires trying out lots of sports in an encouraging environment.

But this is a climbing forum so there's no one here who doesn't enjoy sport so probably a difficult thing for us to understand that some people hate being pushed to their limits and being a little bit uncomfortable.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

So what did kids do on Wednesday afternoons if they weren't interested in sport?

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I don't. I f**king hate sport. Not all of us think of climbing as a sport.

In reply to Hooo:

Computer science or music.

Which was a bit difficult as I was in the rugby squad, the school orchestra and doing O'level computer science.

In reply to Hooo:


It doesn't matter what you think. It's a sport. It's a fairly hard physical exercise that requires quite a lot of skill.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

bollocks.

In reply to Removed User:

you might have to have a rethink in 2020.

In reply to Hooo:


Too right, a nation of couch potatoes is what we need.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

That sounds like exactly the kind of thing a school, certainly a comprehensive school, would be very well placed to do, and indeed our school *did* do in Year 10 and above (which was the point I started enjoying PE/Games and stopped trying to get away with not having to do it) - if only they'd applied it to all years - mixed age groups would have been a good way to make it viable.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I'm getting a feeling of deja vu. Haven't you and I had this argument before? Whatever.
The point I was making ( which was slightly related to the thread ), was that compulsory PE made me hate sport so much that decades later I still refuse to accept that anything I enjoy doing is a sport.

In reply to Hooo:


That's quite odd, as I had similar experiences up to year 10 but that just made me hate PE/Games, not sport, and I don't see any issues with calling climbing a sport at all. And the other thing I do is running, which definitely is.

In reply to Big Ger:


Do you honestly lack the ability to appreciate that you can dislke organised sport without being a couch potato?

In reply to Hooo:

I avoided compulsory sport in the 6th form sometimes by walking out of the school gates and going on 12 mile walks round the countryside practicing map reading and looking at village churches and sometimes the old grave inscriptions.

And duties in the signals hut often detained me

In reply to Hooo:


And what about those who 'don't like' science, maths or history for example?


Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:


Science and maths are useful, so is history to a degree.

What useful purpose is served by forcing kids to play sports?

In reply to timjones:

Unfortunately children are not small adults no matter what the cuddly fluffy brigade would have you believe.

We as adults and parents are responsible for their development. If you let kids only do things they liked you'd end up with a nation of entitled obese people who live off takeaways and watch TV all day. They need to be trained and educated correctly.

Forcing kids to do sport doesn't work but allowing them not to do it just because they don't particularly like hard work is negligent.

I spent an hour shooting basketball hoops with my son yesterday evening at the local recreation ground. He was knackered. Quite frightening really.

Have made a note and a resolution to try and do this 3-4 times a week.

In reply to wercat:



That definitely sounds like a euphemism! Even if it isn't, it should be.....

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Is the education system incapable of rewarding those who dislike organised sports but are obviously fit and active?

Forcing them to fanny about chasing a ball around a field is a piss poor way of promoting health and fitness!

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Maybe you ought to be considering something a bit more active if he is that unfit?

In reply to timjones:


More active? I'm not sure there are many things more active than that.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


A good brisk walk, a cycle ride, jog around the park etc.

None of which involve a ball, so many people seem to lack imagination when it comes to promoting health and fitness.

In reply to timjones:

Well. We walked to the recreation ground. About a mile there and back.

It didn't quite have the same effect. Maybe I'll suggest he briskly walks round Parkrun tomorrow instead of running it?

In reply to timjones:

It may be easy to come up with imaginative ways to promote health and fitness but implementing them as a single PE teacher in charge of 30 kids is another matter. Some people here seem to be wishing for some sort of individualised programme in each lesson for each pupil without recognising that the teacher may not have the relevant skills or time or the school may lack the physical resources. I would also suggest that even when you do badminton one week and then eg. climbing, basketball, trampolining etc you actually don't gain any real skill or see any progression.
We don't accept that pupils can opt out of physical geography, organic chemistry, algebra, human biology, avoid poetry or French verbs.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:


The choice of which leisure activities to pursue should be down to the individual. If schools can't offer a decent range of choices then maybe they should leave well alone or allow pupils to opt out. None of the limited range of sports offered are essential life skills.

The only valid reason for offering sport in schools is to promote health and fitness. If you believe all the tales of childhood obesity then it doesn't seem to be working.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

You don't need to gain or teach the skills in the school. The job of the PE teacher is to introduce and educate the kids in a broad range of activities.

Take 30 kids onto a field get them to throw a javelin. How many of them are going to do that at home in their back garden (assuming they have one)? How many would even think about throwing a javelin? How many of them actually enjoy it or are any good?

If you find 2 kids in 5 years who enjoy it and are good at it, those kids will want to continue it - at which point the teacher gives them info on the local athletics club.

Extend that to all sports and it's not hard to see how the kids develop.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I think we were throwing bamboo 'spears' at each other long before we had seen, or even heard of a a javelin.

I ended up with a hole in my scalp as a result of this activity...

In reply to timjones:

>. None of the limited range of sports offered are essential life skills.

I didn't know that education was about essential life skills.

In reply to Tom Valentine:


I would agree. Teamwork and determination aren't harmful. Not winning, accepting you lost and moving on try harder next time isn't bad either.

Or, or the little darlings should only do things which are directly relevant and they are good at, gain lots of A* then leave education at 16, 18, 21 and be in for a shock.

In reply to Tom Valentine:


What else is it about?

Apart from artificially feeding the football gravy train

In reply to Tom Valentine:


I seem to hear repeated calls for schools to be teaching kids all sorts of things that I think ought to be the parents responsibility.

Maybe schools feel they have to teach essential life skills because there are so many parents who don't think they have any responsibility to teach their kids anything.

In reply to captain paranoia: like?

I remember cooking and so on being taught in the 70's, 80's , home economics

In reply to wbo:


My daughter remembers it being taught in 2015.

In reply to timjones:
I'm a bit confused now. I went to university and studied English Literature for three years. Is that an essential life skill?

And after that I went on to teach English literature for 30 odd years to various people. I never assumed I was teaching them an essential life skill, and I doubt my colleagues teaching music or art did either.

In reply to Tom Valentine:


We only need to know how to breathe, eat, drink and use an iPad.

And ride a bicycle of course.