Education and Grans Rights

I thought it was quite an interesting discussion and I was enjoying putting forward what might be described as the school's viewpoint. Not one I necessarily agree with but one that I thought needed putting. I quite like a good debate especially when someone can debate without digressing or getting personal. Thanks Chewbacca

I was talking about the original post and poster being long long gone Trisher not the one Gonegirl brought up

She's long gone!

The discussion that was underway was about what gonegirl said. And gonegirl had not gone but was engaging in the chat.

The OP? Who cares?

Yes, it was just getting interesting trisher!

I didn't know an interesting argument was something unacceptable!!

OP it’s probably having a right little chuckle throw the stone into the pond and watch the ripples spread ?

Let it go, let it GO ( warble) as the OP has long gone.

"Satisfactory" is scarcely an "A" grade and it may be nothing to do with a standard grading procedure simply a teacher's assessment of the child's work, so for a particular child a "C"or a "D" will be considered "satisfactory" whereas another child might be expected to acheive an "A" or a "B" Although these are no longer the grades at GCSE it's now 9-1.

Very true trisher, but the caveat of the acceptable level of grades achieved, to qualify a pupil to go on the trip, has to made known to the pupils and parents before any payment is accepted by the school. Furthermore, a court could deem it to be unreasonable that a pupil, who has historically only achieved C or D grades, is then told that they have to achieve 3 straight A grades to qualify inclusion on the trip, and yet payment was accepted by the school, in full knowledge that that outcome was unlikely.

As I said earlier, any school who would even think of sending a letter out to parents like this one was, without having obtained legal advice beforehand, is leaving themselves open to litigation.

On the other hand Gonegirl if the trip is in term time the staff may feel that children who have not acheived "satisfactory" or "good" in assignments can ill afford to miss the time in class. Perhaps they are worried about the results but only because they are pressured at all sides to come up with the goods.
As far as breaking the contract goes Chewbacca there may well have been warnings, written or verbal, given when the trip was proposed to parents. Teachers are in the unique position of acting 'in loco parentis' and as such are entitled to do what is considered reasonable, and if they refused to take a child that would be considered reasonable. A refund as I say would depend upon what can be acheived in the time available.
As the law stands, teachers are legally responsible for students in their care during a trip, but given that one cannot anticipate every possible danger, court rulings tend to place emphasis on what is reasonable under particular circumstances.
The school's actions might be considered reasonable.

Well I think the OP may have achieved their objective ?

It's got nothing to do with behaviour!

frighteners

I doubt if they would stick to it. They can't be that stupid. They're prob just putting the frightened on the kids.

Btw, got the grade wrong. Satisfactory. Not 'Good'. perhaps they don't want to take a load of thicko's abroad

Would anyone really want their GC on a plane with children who can't behave in a classroom?
I wouldn't want to be on a plane with children who can't behave either!

I struggle to understand why a school would send out a letter that placed them in such a legally precarious position. They're running the risk of very expensive litigation that they'd be hard pressed to counter in court.

It's obviously illegal, but hey!

right

MUST NOT WASTE ANY MORE TIME ON THIS!!! Jobs to do!
Me too.

That's academic trisher. Once a booking for a trip has been accepted by the school, an "implied contract" has been entered into between the pupil and the school. If the school has reason to believe that a pupil will be troublesome on the trip, and that may impact on either the enjoyment or safety of the other pupils and staff, they should not accept the booking in the first place. But once they have accepted the money for that trip, they are legally contracted to fulfill whatever the money was to pay for. If, for any reason, the school then wants to cancel that booking, they are legally obligated to return the full value of the monies paid. If they then decide to offer that booking to another pupil; any costs incurred in changing the name on the booking must be borne by the school. An implied contract is as legally binding as a written contract and it can be subject to the same litigation court action.

Is it possible that there is a bit of miscommunication here? And what the school has said is that anyone who fails to have their behaviour recorded as "good" in all lessons will not be allowed to go? As for the refund, well if they are flying unless there is sufficient time it will be impossible to replace the child and even if the child is replaced there will be a charge for changing the name. Warnng that a full refund may not be possible is quite reasonable and I would imagine legal. The other alternatives are that the school takes everyone even those they know will be trouble, or if they don't take them and refund, the cost of the refund is passed to those who go. Both of which are unacceptable. Would anyone really want their GC on a plane with children who can't behave in a classroom?

So that digression into gonegirl's grandchild's secondary school's email has been clarified, she is not being attacked for mentioning it, and she and the child's parents are right in not accepting it.

We can return to the OP's reception class grandchild and this apparently cruel and unnatural punishment - whatever that is. We have not been told what the punishment is, or in what part of the country (or the world) this is happening.

The question was "Have I the right to complain?" The answer is "Yes, if you are the one responsible for your grandchild, and if you are quite sure that he is correct in saying that he was punished." If he had extra help because he was struggling, that is not punishing him, that is giving the support that you feel is missing. If you are not in loco parentis for the child, then it is up to his parents to take action, supported by you of course. However, they should be prepared to apologise to the teacher if the facts are not quite as they seemed at first.

MUST NOT WASTE ANY MORE TIME ON THIS!!! Jobs to do!

Daughter prob thinks it's best to let it go. She knows the school better than I do. It's obviously illegal, but hey!

'Scuse me?! When did I say they weren't accepting it?