Labour Headmaster with odd ideas on school absenteeisnm and 4 year olds

CDfm · 22-03-2010 1:23am #1

Aodhan O Riordain Labour Councillor and School Principle lets 4 and 5 year olds have it. I found his views published in the Northside People 11 March 2010weird.

Dah this safeguard he refers as a loophole.

This guy is priceless and the best Irish Local Representative Since Bernie Murphy

http://irishelectionliterature.wordp...bernie-murphy/

However the flipside is he is running a school.

Home News Latest News School absenteeism level causing concern
School absenteeism level causing concern Thursday, 11 March 2010 A NORTHSIDE public representative and school principal has called on the Department of Education to tackle the problem of school absenteeism among children under the age of six.
Clontarf ward councillor Aodhan O’Riordain (Lab), who is principal at a north inner city school, said thousands of school days were being lost by four and five-year-olds every year.
Cllr Ó Ríordáin said children were missing vital days each year because of a loophole that prevents their absence being investigated.
He highlighted the powerlessness of the National Educational Welfare Board (NEWB), established to monitor school attendance, to investigate absenteeism among schoolchildren under the age of six.
The board, established under the Educational Welfare Act 2000, is required to investigate cases of school absenteeism.
However, one provision within the 2000 Education Welfare Act states that the functions of the National Educational Welfare Board are limited to children between the ages of six and 16.
Cllr O’Riordain pointed out that there was no statutory requirement for children to be enrolled in school before the age of six.
“This means that teachers, principals and National Educational Welfare Board officers are powerless to intervene in a case of chronic absenteeism of a child who is enrolled in a school under that age,” ..............wherever a child is enrolled in a school that the powers afforded to the NEWB under the Educational Welfare Act can be enforced, regardless of the child's age.

Overheal · 22-03-2010 2:30am

I guess that depends upon your interpretation of where these under 6yr olds are spending their time. For instance low attendance rates in a teen leads to suspicion of drugs sex and other deliquencies. For a child I have no clue. But then again, hearing stories about Elderly men abusing little girls on a daily basis for 10 years; makes you wonder. Henceforth, should the NEWB (hehe, "n00b") be allowed to investigate toddler absenteeism?

Pygmalion · 22-03-2010 5:37am

Overheal wrote: »

Henceforth, should the NEWB (hehe, "n00b") be allowed to investigate toddler absenteeism?

Nah, gotta leave that **** to the pros.

FlutterinBantam · 22-03-2010 8:44am

CDfm wrote: »

Aodhan O Riordain Labour Councillor and School Principle lets 4 and 5 year olds have it. I found his views published in the Northside People 11 March 2010weird.

Dah this safeguard he refers as a loophole.

This guy is priceless and the best Irish Local Representative Since Bernie Murphy

http://irishelectionliterature.wordp...bernie-murphy/

However the flipside is he is running a school.

Why would you think that attitude was 'weird'.

He is spot on in my opinion.

We need more like him.

lmtduffy · 22-03-2010 9:28am

Overheal wrote: »

I guess that depends upon your interpretation of where these under 6yr olds are spending their time. For instance low attendance rates in a teen leads to suspicion of drugs sex and other deliquencies. For a child I have no clue. But then again, hearing stories about Elderly men abusing little girls on a daily basis for 10 years; makes you wonder. Henceforth, should the NEWB (hehe, "n00b") be allowed to investigate toddler absenteeism?

The problem is they are not spending their time in school, could be parents not arsed to get them there, not able to get them there- but the point is the first few years of education are probably pretty important, solving the problem earlier and providing whatever supports might be required is better done early than late.

CDfm · 22-03-2010 12:00pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Why would you think that attitude was 'weird'.

They are 4 and 5 year olds. Yes parents would probably have enrolled them due to work issues but with the downturn etc dont really need to.Its north inner city.

Fundamentally, the family is the primary educator of a child and this is under the constitution. The law as it stands balances the needs of both.

4 and 5 year olds are babies.

If a certain bunch or sector of society have special needs then deal with them but dont legislate for the lowest common denominator and expect the rest of us to live by rules you set for them.

That is nuts.

As a society we have gotten used to providing for people like single mothers and junkies because it seems like a good idea. Lifestyles are personal choices. People shouldnt have children they cant afford or cant care for and the state should be the last resort not first resort. If the state wants to intervene take the children away-let them.

If Mr O'Riordain feels the parents are bad parents and cant cope and their children would be better elsewhere then he should bite the bullet and say it and not curb the rights and freedoms of the many to cope with the few.

So legislate for the few and treat them differently but leave the rest of us alone.

anymore · 22-03-2010 12:01pm

In this academic year, My kid's school has left kids off twice at 12.00 and four times at 11.00 for Parent teacher meetings,. Then there are the in service days, the week off for mid term in OCT/Nov, the week off for mid term in Feb, the 10 days off for Easter and days for things like Founders day etc, etc. The first mentioned half days don't of course include the weekly Wednesday half day, which is never used for Parent Teacher Meetings.
I am not worried about under six year old absenteeism, I am worried about teacher absenteeism. I am worried about part workers who constantly lecture us about how hard they work. I am worried about kids who grow up thinking they too can work part time and be regarded as full time professionals.

CDfm · 22-03-2010 12:29pm

I agree Anymore and you make some very important points teachers know how to treat themselves very well and their unions looks after them.

This is education provision to suit the teacher not the child or parents who are the clients.

This guy has some ego -his world his way.

I have had to deal with school problems over the years to the point that the school didnt know an Irish teacher wasnt showing up to class for 6 months or so.

Sleepy · 22-03-2010 1:02pm

Is the solution to a child with high levels of absenteeism not just a simple matter of holding back the child to repeat the year?

CDfm · 22-03-2010 1:11pm

Sleepy wrote: »

Is the solution to a child with high levels of absenteeism not just a simple matter of holding back the child to repeat the year?

It may be.

Its not societies problem and I feel he should look elsewhere before putting in rules for the lot of us. This is not school and it seems to me that he wants to have rules applied like school.

If he has issues with parents in his school or he thinks they are not doing their duty there are mechanisms he can use.Just leave everyone elses rights alone.

FlutterinBantam · 22-03-2010 1:16pm

High absenteeism amongst children at school is the forerunner of problems later on.

Children aren't fools, they will quickly cotton on if the parents are lackadaisical about sending them to school.

Later on, they won't bother, probably leave school as early as possible and struggle on welfare for the rest of their lives.

There is a law in Ireland about school attendance, it's there for a reason.

Shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

CDfm · 22-03-2010 1:46pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

High absenteeism amongst children at school is the forerunner of problems later on.

Children aren't fools, they will quickly cotton on if the parents are lackadaisical about sending them to school.

Later on, they won't bother, probably leave school as early as possible and struggle on welfare for the rest of their lives.

these are symptoms -if the parents cant cope then take the kids away and put them up for adoption. We are importing kids to adopt from China.

There is a law in Ireland about school attendance, it's there for a reason.

Shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

it kicks in when kids are 6 and thats enough if there are parents who dont have the skills to parent take the kids off them.

lmtduffy · 22-03-2010 2:14pm

CDfm wrote: »

these are symptoms -if the parents cant cope then take the kids away and put them up for adoption. We are importing kids to adopt from China.

it kicks in when kids are 6 and thats enough if there are parents who dont have the skills to parent take the kids off them.

really what is your problem with kids who are registered for a school being expected to be at school?

and what is your problem with investigating why a child is not turning up for school?

and I dont think all hardy-harring about teachers being absent and how parents should dictate schools is relevant.

The very early experiences a child has with education can be very important, and it is societies problem as they are a part of society and every child that does not receive a basic education will come back to kick us in the ass later.

Believe it or not teachers study and train in education and how to educate and see far more children, than any parent, can go through the school system successfully or unsuccessfully and it is in no way far out to think that being there for the first years makes a difference in the later years and later in life.

CDfm · 22-03-2010 2:42pm

IMHO -a child being enroled at 4 is too young by a mile. Even at 5 they are tots.So I do feel that enforcement at 6 is about the right time. I also feel that this was the reason the age was set at 6 and not 4.

I also feel that between the ages of 4 and 6 a child needs to be able to comprehend that their parents are in sole charge in all circumstances. That includes school.

I am totally against his proposal as it would be againt the childs best interest at that age. Certainly if Mr O'Riordain has local problems they are local and they shouldnt apply to the rest of us. Is it a problem at the ethos pf the school that is causing absenteeism.

Schools have teachers and funds allocated to them on capitation grants etc. So I cant but think he is biased in favour of his proposal to increase numbers.

And no I dont think parents should give up their responsibilities lightly and that why I posted.

I also think rather than curb the rights of the many if he genuinely feels the parents are unfit and the childrens development impaired there are other options open to him.

Going back to the era where guards as truant officers arrived to homes indiscrimately to bring children to school is horrific.

After seeing the article I was worried about his arrogance and it made me think less powers rather than more.Also the days are gone when people were not educated and the teacher was almost the headman in the village.

lmtduffy · 22-03-2010 3:05pm

CDfm wrote: »

IMHO -a child being enroled at 4 is too young by a mile. Even at 5 they are tots.So I do feel that enforcement at 6 is about the right time. I also feel that this was the reason the age was set at 6 and not 4.

So you dont think children should be enroled till there 6, there is nothing forcing parents to put them in before that if they agree it is too young by a mile.
However if they choose to do so,(as im sure youd allow them to do so as you wouldnt want to curb the rights of the many) doesnt it make sence to ensure the child gets the most from their education?

I also feel that between the ages of 4 and 6 a child needs to be able to comprehend that their parents are in sole charge in all circumstances. That includes school.

No parents are not in sole charge in all circumstances, even when it comes to school. They may however benefit from undersatindg authority and school as well as their parents can do this very well. Your conservatism is out of touch with reality.

I am totally against his proposal as it would be againt the childs best interest at that age. Certainly if Mr O'Riordain has local problems they are local and they shouldnt apply to the rest of us. Is it a problem at the ethos pf the school that is causing absenteeism.

So it is against a childs best interests to attend school regularly, honestly?
If the schools ethos causes absenteeism, however that works, then address the ethos- it has nothing to do with ensuring a child has a regualr and stable educaiton.

Schools have teachers and funds allocated to them on capitation grants etc. So I cant but think he is biased in favour of his proposal to increase numbers.

So any effort to get children into school and into school regularly= corruption.
Sure.

And no I dont think parents should give up their responsibilities lightly and that why I posted.

I also think rather than curb the rights of the many if he genuinely feels the parents are unfit and the childrens development impaired there are other options open to him.

So you are defending the right for a child to have a half arsed education, and the right to allow parents to decide this?
There are other options, but this happens to be one that works for those over 6 while there is no reason it would not work for those under 6.

Going back to the era where guards as truant officers arrived to homes indiscrimately to bring children to school is horrific.

because if this would happen, does it happen with those above 6?

After seeing the article I was worried about his arrogance and it made me think less powers rather than more.Also the days are gone when people were not educated and the teacher was almost the headman in the village.

Yes arrogance worries alot of people and should be taken into account when writing policy, otherwise youd be worried.

And those days are gone and doing the very same to 4-6 year olds what we do to 6+'s will not bring those days back, sorry if my arrogance worries you but its true.

AlekSmart · 22-03-2010 5:47pm

Any chance of a sticky for this nugget from CDfm :

As a society we have gotten used to providing for people like single mothers and junkies because it seems like a good idea. Lifestyles are personal choices. People shouldnt have children they cant afford or cant care for and the state should be the last resort not first resort. If the state wants to intervene take the children away-let them.

If Mr O'Riordain feels the parents are bad parents and cant cope and their children would be better elsewhere then he should bite the bullet and say it and not curb the rights and freedoms of the many to cope with the few.

So legislate for the few and treat them differently but leave the rest of us alone.

There is so much "Between-the-lines" stuff in the original article that one just KNOWS any real discussion will soon become bogged down in the sheer awfulness of life as a single-unwaged-parent/couple in the bleak uncaring North Inner City.

Anyway for what it`s worth,I reckon CDfm is on the ball but if I were Him/Her I would`nt expect any kudos for it.

CDfm · 22-03-2010 7:11pm

lmtduffy wrote: »

So you dont think children should be enroled till there 6, there is nothing forcing parents to put them in before that if they agree it is too young by a mile.

I didnt say that I said that the parents can delegate authority to the school but retain responsibility ie the powers they delegate in loco parentis are restricted between the ages 4-6. Maybe those restrictions which are also safeguards do not suit him.

No parents are not in sole charge in all circumstances, even when it comes to school. They may however benefit from undersatindg authority and school as well as their parents can do this very well. Your conservatism is out of touch with reality.

But its in touch with the constitution our basic law

So it is against a childs best interests to attend school regularly, honestly?
If the schools ethos causes absenteeism, however that works, then address the ethos- it has nothing to do with ensuring a child has a regualr and stable educaiton.

So any effort to get children into school and into school regularly= corruption.
Sure.

So you are defending the right for a child to have a half arsed education, and the right to allow parents to decide this?
There are other options, but this happens to be one that works for those over 6 while there is no reason it would not work for those under 6.

I havent said that. I have said that calling for such a draconian approach is extreme. And yes I am saying if the parents can home school adequetely it is their right. The parent and not the state decides till the child is 6.

because if this would happen, does it happen with those above 6?

Yes arrogance worries alot of people and should be taken into account when writing policy, otherwise youd be worried.

And those days are gone and doing the very same to 4-6 year olds what we do to 6+'s will not bring those days back, sorry if my arrogance worries you but its true.

Parents have a certain responsibilities as well as rights - if a bunch of parents set up an alternative school etc it is their right.

If the guy has a problem with the parenting given the children in his area then that is a topical or local issue and needs to be dealt it at a local level rather than eroding other peoples rights.

lmtduffy · 22-03-2010 9:48pm

CDfm wrote: »

I didnt say that I said that the parents can delegate authority to the school but retain responsibility ie the powers they delegate in loco parentis are restricted between the ages 4-6. Maybe those restrictions which are also safeguards do not suit him.

If parents are to send their kids to school when they are under 6 it is best that they attend properly and that any reason for them not attending be investigated.
What do you mean the safe guards do not suit him?
these safe guards are in place for all children over 6, there is no reason they're not there below 6.

But its in touch with the constitution our basic law

So are a lot of other things, doesnt mean this conflicts with the constitution.
If you choose to send a child to school you accept the schools rules, if a child is not attending school right this affects the child and ought to be investigated.

I havent said that. I have said that calling for such a draconian approach is extreme. And yes I am saying if the parents can home school adequetely it is their right. The parent and not the state decides till the child is 6.

There is nothing draconian or extreme about this in the slightest, it works for 6+'s it will work for 4-6's.
If parents want to home school thats another issue, but if they send the child to school the child needs to be there and it is damaging for the child and a waste of school resources if the child isnt attending.

Parents have a certain responsibilities as well as rights - if a bunch of parents set up an alternative school etc it is their right.

If the guy has a problem with the parenting given the children in his area then that is a topical or local issue and needs to be dealt it at a local level rather than eroding other peoples rights.

The parents setting up their own school is irrelevant.
Why should children be allowed to attend school irregularly, what right to parents have to feck up their kids education when they are between 4-6 but bot when they are over 6?

Can you make a real point please?

CDfm · 22-03-2010 11:00pm

lmtduffy wrote: »

If parents are to send their kids to school when they are under 6 it is best that they attend properly and that any reason for them not attending be investigated.
What do you mean the safe guards do not suit him?
these safe guards are in place for all children over 6, there is no reason they're not there below 6.

There is a huge difference between a 4 and a 6 year olds development and ability to communicate. Its huge. A 4 year old is just a year or more out of nappies. The difference in the law will reflect that.

(And BTW I do have a teaching qualification at secondary level but dont work as a teacher & am also a Dad)

So are a lot of other things, doesnt mean this conflicts with the constitution.

Have you read the constitution recently here is a summary from the Citizens Information Website.

The Constitution of Ireland has a number of articles that are relevant to the law on education.
Article 42 of the Constitution deals with education. Other articles also have a bearing on education law, in particular the articles dealing with the family and religion (Articles 41 and 44). You can read the full text of the Irish Constitution (pdf) here.
Education

This is the full text of Article 42 of the Constitution of Ireland:
"42: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
42.2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.
The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.
The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.
The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.
In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child."
The Family

This is the relevant part of Article 41:
"1.1°: The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
1.2°: The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State

So the parents rights are superior to those of the school and the state. The state supplements the parents and the parents responsibilities and rights in respect of a 4 year old are rightly superior.

If you choose to send a child to school you accept the schools rules, if a child is not attending school right this affects the child and ought to be investigated

.

Normally, parents want the best education possible for their children. I do.

If a child is not attending school and the parents are at fault and the child is not reaching the minimum standards set by the state the state has the right to step in.

There is nothing draconian or extreme about this in the slightest, it works for 6+'s it will work for 4-6's.
If parents want to home school thats another issue, but if they send the child to school the child needs to be there and it is damaging for the child and a waste of school resources if the child isnt attending.

There is a huge difference between a 4 year old and a 6 year olds ability to communicate and their developement.

There is also a huge difference between the ability of a 14 year olds ability and development to cope with adult situations without their parent as their advocate.

My rights in respect of my 16 year old are rightly superior to those of her school or teachers.

The parents setting up their own school is irrelevant

.

Parents are the primary educators not the schools. Mr O'Riordain has his position on the totem pole arseways.

Why should children be allowed to attend school irregularly, what right to parents have to feck up their kids education when they are between 4-6 but bot when they are over 6?

Development differences Imtduffy and they need their parents to communicate for them. %hat is fundamental in normal parenting situations.

Can you make a real point please?

I think the safeguards are there for reasons and they are guaranteed within the constitution.

It seems to me that Mr O'Riordain cant make his case under existing legislation and rather than adapting wants everyone else to adopt his point of view.

Anyway, once you extend these powers how do you protect the rest of us and what happens to our rights which are then taken away.

Why should I give up my rights to him when he is supposed to work for me. Schools dont seem to want to be accountable to the parents rhey serve.

Laminations · 23-03-2010 3:19am

A parent has the right to decide how to educate their child, however if they choose to enroll their child in a school they do not have the right to slack on attendance or break any other school rules and not expect to be investigated. Maybe that investigation will find that there are legitimate reasons for poor attendance but it would be remiss of the school to not check these reasons, they investigate instances above the age of 6. And what does development have to do with any of this? Neither a 4yr old or a 6yr old makes their own way to school, they rely on their parents so parents are responsible for absenteeism, right the way up til the child is 18. And 4yr olds are not babies as you referred to them. If you want to home school them do that. If you want to set up a hippy commune school run by parents do that but if you enroll them in a school dont get upset if the school actually expects them to turn up.

lmtduffy · 23-03-2010 6:37am

CDfm wrote: »

There is a huge difference between a 4 and a 6 year olds development and ability to communicate. Its huge. A 4 year old is just a year or more out of nappies. The difference in the law will reflect that.

(And BTW I do have a teaching qualification at secondary level but dont work as a teacher & am also a Dad)

Ok well then you have an issue with 4-6 year olds starting school at all, but cant you agree that if they are going to start school it is in their best interests to do it right?
And as was alluded to above by the last poster there could also be implications for the school if they are not seen as looking out for the childs welfare if they do not investigate why the child is not attending school.

Have you read the constitution recently here is a summary from the Citizens Information Website.

So the parents rights are superior to those of the school and the state. The state supplements the parents and the parents responsibilities and rights in respect of a 4 year old are rightly superior.

If its constitutional for 6+'s it is constitutional for 6+'s end of.

Normally, parents want the best education possible for their children. I do.

If a child is not attending school and the parents are at fault and the child is not reaching the minimum standards set by the state the state has the right to step in.

yes and they should step in if the parents decided to send the child to school in the very same way that if the child 4-6 or 6+.

There is a huge difference between a 4 year old and a 6 year olds ability to communicate and their developement.

There is also a huge difference between the ability of a 14 year olds ability and development to cope with adult situations without their parent as their advocate.

My rights in respect of my 16 year old are rightly superior to those of her school or teachers.

once again you dont seem to disagree with this mans proposal, you disagree with 4-6 year olds being in school full stop.and as Ive said already you may no a lot about children being a parent, a la joe duffy caller, but a principal may also be a parent and further more a principal sees hundreds of children go through the education system a year, if there was something grossly wrong with that it would have come up by now.

.

Parents are the primary educators not the schools. Mr O'Riordain has his position on the totem pole arseways.

if you send a child to school, and the childs education is insufficient then it is the schools failing, parents are the primary educators but they make an agreement to abide the school rules when entering school.

Development differences Imtduffy and they need their parents to communicate for them. %hat is fundamental in normal parenting situations.

Nothing stopping this in his idea.

I think the safeguards are there for reasons and they are guaranteed within the constitution.

Again, not a constitutional issue.

It seems to me that Mr O'Riordain cant make his case under existing legislation and rather than adapting wants everyone else to adopt his point of view.

His case appears perfectly valid, there is a loop hole due to an arbitrary age being set, if you can find a reason that the age was set 6+ then we might have something more to discuss.

Anyway, once you extend these powers how do you protect the rest of us and what happens to our rights which are then taken away.

Why should I give up my rights to him when he is supposed to work for me. Schools dont seem to want to be accountable to the parents rhey serve.

Once again, protect us from ensuring our children abide the school rules and our right not be questioned when we appear to put our childs welfare in danger?

He does not work for you, he works for the state.
You are you kids primary educator, if you want to send them to school its their rules.
They are not your servants either, their interests are in childrens education and so is this mans idea.

CDfm · 23-03-2010 8:16am

I am amazed at some of the comments here.

Irrespective of who pays Mr O'Riordains wages the parents rights come first. You can delegate authority but not responsibility. The parents authority,responsibility or rights do not stop on enrolment.

I disagree with Mr O'Riordains proposal fundamentally as it affects the rights of the child as articulated by the parent. A 6 year old can articulate more than a 4 year old and is more life confident. Ergo- the need more protection and parental involvement.

It is not a "loophole" if it is what legislators intended when making the law. No such loophole exists. So yes I disagree.

Sorry, but he would have to come up with a different argument for me that the children are developmently subnormal and then I would listen. So if a childs parents cannot do the basics with them then that is a lack of parenting skills etc. Lots of inner City parents have the skills and do so.

So if absenteeism between the ages of 4 and 6 does not impair a childs development to the states minimum standard then his argument is bull****.

My point is that he wants the law changed and it will affect good parents and those whose children are developed exactly the same as those in his inner city school. If his argument is that inner city parents make bad parents and cant parent their kids the common factor is the parents so take the kids away from them.

I do not know how schools are funded but does absenteeism affect school funding in any way. Certainly enrollment numbers affect numbers of teachers in a school. So if he has aggressivelly enroled and is dealing with the fall out from that -well tough.

The point that when I hand over my child that my responsibilty somehow evaporates at the school gates is quite frankly a crock. The state pays the wages collected by tax collected from me. To imply that a school "owns" a child and that in some way the parents rights are somehow diluted on enrolement is very radical stuff. Of course, he is responsible to the state on the provision and management of the facility but he is responsible to the parents on their individual child.

So simply put, I do not want to see the fundamental rights of parents and children eroded by legislation that works well already. If the parents in his area are the problem then deal with them and leave the rest of us alone. Dont pussyfoot around the idea. Go for it and take the kids.

lmtduffy · 23-03-2010 12:13pm

CDfm wrote: »

I am amazed at some of the comments here.

Irrespective of who pays Mr O'Riordains wages the parents rights come first. You can delegate authority but not responsibility. The parents authority,responsibility or rights do not stop on enrolment.

The school has rules to ensure htey deliver the education you expect of them, thats it, you have other options.

I disagree with Mr O'Riordains proposal fundamentally as it affects the rights of the child as articulated by the parent. A 6 year old can articulate more than a 4 year old and is more life confident. Ergo- the need more protection and parental involvement.

You are talking hogwash.
It is the very same, the law and legislation ttreats them the same the school treats them the same, the parent decides when to send theri child to school.

It is not a "loophole" if it is what legislators intended when making the law. No such loophole exists. So yes I disagree.

Do you have any proof of this, maybe the study they looked at to decide this, unless someone involved comes out and gives a reason there is no other reason to think of it as a loop-hole.

Sorry, but he would have to come up with a different argument for me that the children are developmently subnormal and then I would listen. So if a childs parents cannot do the basics with them then that is a lack of parenting skills etc. Lots of inner City parents have the skills and do so.

Not relevant or more hogwash.

So if absenteeism between the ages of 4 and 6 does not impair a childs development to the states minimum standard then his argument is bull****.

You dont think absenteeism impairs a childs development?
really this is what your resting your argument on?
that a child between 4 and 6 is not affected by absenteeism but once they are over 6 they are?

My point is that he wants the law changed and it will affect good parents and those whose children are developed exactly the same as those in his inner city school. If his argument is that inner city parents make bad parents and cant parent their kids the common factor is the parents so take the kids away from them.

Once again good parents right to enroll their child in a school and not bring them there?
The argument is in no way focused on inner city parents.
And I think youll find taking a child away from their paretns isnt always the best option for anyone or the most efficent.

I do not know how schools are funded but does absenteeism affect school funding in any way. Certainly enrollment numbers affect numbers of teachers in a school. So if he has aggressivelly enroled and is dealing with the fall out from that -well tough.

There is no evidence of this claim at all. Back it up or stop throwing your paranoia around.

The point that when I hand over my child that my responsibilty somehow evaporates at the school gates is quite frankly a crock. The state pays the wages collected by tax collected from me. To imply that a school "owns" a child and that in some way the parents rights are somehow diluted on enrolement is very radical stuff. Of course, he is responsible to the state on the provision and management of the facility but he is responsible to the parents on their individual child.

No one is suggesting this, its that if you agree to send your child ot a school you make an agreement with that school, both you and the school have responcibilities to the child and each other, one of them is gettign the child to school so they can give him the education you expect.
The rest of waht your saying appears to be pulled out of the sky.

So simply put, I do not want to see the fundamental rights of parents and children eroded by legislation that works well already. If the parents in his area are the problem then deal with them and leave the rest of us alone. Dont pussyfoot around the idea. Go for it and take the kids.

You see the problem here is you use the word see, and you seem to be seeing alot of things that no one else sees so we cant gurantee you wont see this.
But there isnt any mutually observable evidence of what your claiming.
The legislation doesnt work there is a loophole and the problem is not only in his area and it is not a plan by him steal your right to **** up your childs education and get a load of extra funding while he's at it.

If you have any evidence of anything back it up.

CDfm · 23-03-2010 1:22pm

lmtduffy wrote: »

The school has rules to ensure htey deliver the education you expect of them, thats it, you have other options.

You are talking hogwash.
It is the very same, the law and legislation ttreats them the same the school treats them the same, the parent decides when to send theri child to school.

but you previously said the constitution was irrelevant and I said it is relevant and I would not have wanted my rights taken away -no matter what a headmaster decided on any given day.He is not God except in his badly attended school.

Do you have any proof of this, maybe the study they looked at to decide this, unless someone involved comes out and gives a reason there is no other reason to think of it as a loop-hole.

Its an act of the oireachtas and maybe people other than teachers made these rules.Maybe they decided that children between 4 -6 were exempt from the rules because of age.

Not relevant or more hogwash

.

it is very relevant and relevant to parents.

You dont think absenteeism impairs a childs development?
really this is what your resting your argument on?
that a child between 4 and 6 is not affected by absenteeism but once they are over 6 they are

I am not saying it does not what I am saying is that the rest of us dont want our rights affected to deal with the few. Find another way of dealing with it not affecting the rest of us. Get them adopted for all I care -just keep me and mine out of it. it does not affect me and keep it that way please.

Now do you have reports and statistics to back this up -that school vs the country average for reading age and numeracy to [prove the kids have not reached minimum standards which is what the constitution refers to.

The country has 25% funtional illiteracy accross all ages -so the education experts are really on top of their game.:rolleyes:

Once again good parents right to enroll their child in a school and not bring them there?
The argument is in no way focused on inner city parents.
And I think youll find taking a child away from their paretns isnt always the best option for anyone or the most efficent.

That is where he is a teacher and where the article refers -he would want a better argument to take away peoples rights under the constitution.

There is no evidence of this claim at all. Back it up or stop throwing your paranoia around.

does absenteeism affect school funding- its a simple question to weigh up his motivation.

Is he speaking as a public representative or a Headmaster.

But there isnt any mutually observable evidence of what your claiming.
The legislation doesnt work there is a loophole and the problem is not only in his area and it is not a plan by him steal your right to **** up your childs education and get a load of extra funding while he's at it.

If you have any evidence of anything back it up.

It isnt a loophole and the child is a citizen too and there are some rights so inalienable that that is the way they are and we restrict how they are exercised. This may fall into that category.

I am not concerned about the people he is talking about. The state have powers to deal with them under the constitution and are mandated to do so by the constitution. If the issue is being addressed they should deal with them and leave the rest of us alone.

Scofflaw · 23-03-2010 1:39pm

Don't let the heat to light ratio get out of hand, please.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Laminations · 23-03-2010 2:16pm

CDfm wrote: »

I am not saying it does not what I am saying is that the rest of us dont want our rights affected to deal with the few.

Sorry can you explicitly state what rights of yours would be affected if there was investigations of absenteeism for 4 to 6 yr olds??

CDfm wrote: »

Find another way of dealing with it not affecting the rest of us. Get them adopted for all I care -just keep me and mine out of it. it does not affect me and keep it that way please.

Deal with what? Absenteeism? Get who adopted? the kids who aren't showing up to school because their parents dont give a flute about their education? how would anyone know who had legitimate reasons for their childs absenteeism and who were just neglectful parents without investigating absenteeism? Or do you propose we just take kids from their parents if the parents have an inner city dublin accent?

If you dont want to be investigated either make sure your precious 'baby' goes to the school you enrolled them in or dont enroll them until they are 6. Simple as.

CDfm · 23-03-2010 3:25pm

@imtduffy and lamination -if Mr O'Riordain told you to jump out in front of a bus would you.

The issue is not absenteeism.

The issue is rights. I do not think we should infringe on individuals liberties to deal with the few. Most parents handle issues properly and exist within the rules so the rules as they are are adequete and balanced.

If a child in a normal family misses school etc the parent helps them to catch up on reading spelling and sums. That is normal.You dont need all of this state apparatus to deal with it.

Now the people being discussed are those who do not do this.

My question is why apply a generic rule to everyone when you are dealing with people whose lifestyle or skills mean their parenting is inadequete.

My question is why should the rest of us have to deal with crap because of it.

I suspect his reason is funding

Running costs of schools
The State pays a direct capitation grant of €178.58 (€200 from 2009) per student to each primary school. The State pays the teachers' salaries. Enhanced capitation grants are paid for children with special educational needs in special schools or who attend special classes in mainstream schools. Capitation grants are used for the day-to-day running of schools and for teaching materials and resources.
Primary schools also receive a grant for caretaking and secretarial services (called the Ancillary Services Grant Scheme) and this is €151.50 (€155 from 2009) per student. A local contribution was formerly required but has now been abolished.
Each school gets a grant towards the cost of minor works. The grant for a school is €5,500 plus €18.50 per student and €74 per student with special educational needs.
Some schools qualify for enhanced funding under various schemes for tacking disadvantage in primary schools such as the Disadvantaged Areas Scheme, Giving Children an Even Break and Early Start.

So I reckon some of his schemes backfired on him and this affected his schools funding. I also reckon attendence may affect capitation too.

So he wants us all to suffer.

Like I say -if the parents arent up to it -deal with it -just dont bother me or infringe on my liberties to do so.

Laminations · 23-03-2010 3:48pm

CDfm wrote: »

So he wants us all to suffer.

Like I say -if the parents arent up to it -deal with it -just dont bother me or infringe on my liberties to do so.

Sorry i'm not getting you. How do you suffer exactly? Yes it may be an inconvenience for you to have to justify your childs absence from school with a legitimate reason but how are we to tell legitimate absenteeism from bad parenting without investigations? Again what rights of yours is this suggestion infringing upon?

rovert · 23-03-2010 4:18pm

There is a racial element to this isnt there tho?

CDfm · 23-03-2010 5:11pm

Laminations wrote: »

Sorry i'm not getting you

You dont like this Contitutional lark do you. Rights are a bit like the ozone layer- it is only when they are gone that you realise their importance.

How do you suffer exactly?

When you get into the habit of suspending or ignoring the constitution or eroding a persons rights it becomes a habit. We had emergency powers legislation suspending the constitution from 1939 to 1976 and from 1976 to ??? under the Emergency Powers Act

So the curent government might be great guys but their successors may not be or the police may not be.

I grew up in an era where a mental patient was arrested under the terrorist legislation and taken into custody for having a twisted spoon with a hotel crest in his possession and died in custody.He was not a terrorist.

Yes it may be an inconvenience for you to have to justify your childs absence from school with a legitimate reason but how are we to tell legitimate absenteeism from bad parenting without investigations? Again what rights of yours is this suggestion infringing upon?

I dont want the inconvenience and I dont want my rights or my childrens rights eroded on the basis of that .

Also - a schoolfriend commited suicide as a result of child abuse - I hear the clerical apologies etc but i have yet to hear any Civil or Public Servant or Government Department apologise.I have heard politicians and priests....

I imagine this is Mr O'Riordains hobby horse on the debate Childrens Rights in the Constitution - whereas I would be more in favour of corporate and individual liability against heads of schools and institutions and government departments and department officials.

I am sure that Mr O'Riordain and I have very very different views on his favorite topic.

CDfm · 23-03-2010 5:18pm

rovert wrote: »

There is a racial element to this isnt there tho?

Please explain - I had a couple of debates on other fora on education and there is a bit of racism in the mix. It has made me change my views somewhat.

Definately against central government control and more inclined towards the local parental involvement in school policy/management. Hey, Im available.....

rovert · 23-03-2010 5:36pm

CDfm wrote: »

Please explain - I had a couple of debates on other fora on education and there is a bit of racism in the mix. It has made me change my views somewhat.

I don’t want to stir up a hornet’s nest but some cultures value education more than others don’t they? Generalisations are never good but in my personal experience I’ve seen some foreign nationals take a much more lassie faire attitude to school attendance. Whether it is cultural or socio-economic differences or both is outside of my knowledge.

That isn’t to say the Irish value education 100% either, some areas of Ireland have appalling attendance and dropout rates at second level for example.

CDfm · 23-03-2010 5:55pm

Of course not Rovert- but would they fit in within the constitutional definitions or in the words of that great philosopher Heidi Klum are they "out"

42: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
42.2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.
The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.
The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.
The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.
In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child."
The Family

This is the relevant part of Article 41:
"1.1°: The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

And arev there cases where the state should take over the education of the children.

Laminations · 23-03-2010 6:01pm

CDfm wrote: »

You dont like this Contitutional lark do you. Rights are a bit like the ozone layer- it is only when they are gone that you realise their importance.

When you get into the habit of suspending or ignoring the constitution or eroding a persons rights it becomes a habit. We had emergency powers legislation suspending the constitution from 1939 to 1976 and from 1976 to ??? under the Emergency Powers Act

So the curent government might be great guys but their successors may not be or the police may not be.

I grew up in an era where a mental patient was arrested under the terrorist legislation and taken into custody for having a twisted spoon with a hotel crest in his possession and died in custody.He was not a terrorist.

I dont want the inconvenience and I dont want my rights or my childrens rights eroded on the basis of that .

Also - a schoolfriend commited suicide as a result of child abuse - I hear the clerical apologies etc but i have yet to hear any Civil or Public Servant or Government Department apologise.I have heard politicians and priests....

I imagine this is Mr O'Riordains hobby horse on the debate Childrens Rights in the Constitution - whereas I would be more in favour of corporate and individual liability against heads of schools and institutions and government departments and department officials.

I am sure that Mr O'Riordain and I have very very different views on his favorite topic.

What are you banging on about? I've crossed out all the parts of your reply that were totally irrelevant to my question. What 'rights' are you referring to? That is my question. Could you please stop being so wishy washy in your reply. If your child goes to school, the school takes attendance for many reasons including health and safety. If there is sporadic absenteeism from a child, they have a responsibility to check why (and they are currently expected to do so for children age 6+). If there are legitimate reasons for the child missing school then fine. If not, you can implement all the whacky 'adopt them all or put em into State care' suggestions that you think will solve poor parenting. But the school or the State should investigate poor attendance.

What rights are you talking about?

CDfm · 23-03-2010 6:29pm

After reading Mr O'Riordains rant its a negative right and its the power not to give the power to him or anyone like him.

Reading whats been posted here has convinced me totally that its a totally wacko suggestion and has made me go further that more not less controls need to be put on schools and school officials.

AlekSmart · 23-03-2010 7:33pm

The issue is not absenteeism.

I`m afraid I`d disagree there .

I`d consider the essential presenting issue was plain simple non-attendance with no explaination or apparent recognition of an expectation of attendance.

Whilst CDfm extrapolates this further into the more nebulous area of "rights",constititional or otherwise,there is always the ever present danger of the presenting forest being lost in the trees of these "rights".

I`m also a bit uncomfortable with Mr O Riordan (Of whom I know little) becoming ever more demonized with each post.
I`m assuming that as a Principal Teacher,Mr O Riordan is not given to random outbursts of rage or unwarranted attacks on innocent parents?

I still cannot shake the "Between the Lines" sensation here and perhaps rovert shares that too..???

Scofflaw · 23-03-2010 7:34pm

Since there's no requirement for children under the age of six to recieve schooling at all, it seems daft to me to want to enforce attendance on them if they are at school. Under six, most 'schooling' is essentially just nursery day care with a bit of education thrown in - make it compulsory to attend once children have enrolled in a school, and you make it more likely their parents will keep them in non-educational day care, or at home, instead.

cordially,
Scofflaw

CDfm · 23-03-2010 7:49pm

Exactly as Scofflaw says - why on earth is he calling for enforcement on something which is optional anyway. Absolutely bizzare.

To me having lived in parts of the world where people had no rights - I appreciate those i have.

I have nothing against Mr O'Riordain and think probably he is an idealist.

Running an inner city school may not be any fun and he probably believes from his school he can change the world or at least that area via increasing the education standards of a generatiion.

So with his idealism and vision he may have become a bit of a zealot or education nazi. Idealism is fine but there are those of us who dont need or share his vision. These traits are great in a headmaster but ..............spare me.

Laminations · 23-03-2010 7:53pm

CDfm wrote: »

its a negative right and its the power not to give the power to him or anyone like him.

Well thats cleared it up! Give what power to him? More waffle

Scofflaw wrote: »

Since there's no requirement for children under the age of six to recieve schooling at all, it seems daft to me to want to enforce attendance on them if they are at school. Under six, most 'schooling' is essentially just nursery day care with a bit of education thrown in - make it compulsory to attend once children have enrolled in a school, and you make it more likely their parents will keep them in non-educational day care, or at home, instead.

And therein lies the parents choice. Send your kid to a child minder or day care who dont give a flying f*** whether your child shows up or not or send them to a school where attendance counts. And no one is saying it would be compulsory to attend, it would just be compulsory to provide reasons for repeated absenteeism. If you dont want your child attending school at 4 then dont enroll them. Quite frankly if it is the equivalent of state paid child care as CDfm keeps going on about capitation, if i'm paying for your child to be in the school they should better be there.

Scofflaw · 23-03-2010 8:17pm

Laminations wrote: »

Well thats cleared it up! Give what power to him? More waffle

And therein lies the parents choice. Send your kid to a child minder or day care who dont give a flying f*** whether your child shows up or not or send them to a school where attendance counts. And no one is saying it would be compulsory to attend, it would just be compulsory to provide reasons for repeated absenteeism. If you dont want your child attending school at 4 then dont enroll them. Quite frankly if it is the equivalent of state paid child care as CDfm keeps going on about capitation, if i'm paying for your child to be in the school they should better be there.

Oddly enough, my child is under six, and in school (and not one you're paying for). The school does request reasons for being absent - most schools will at least ask, and it seems unnecessary to me to go beyond that. A school that doesn't ask doesn't care, and parents that don't explain don't care either. No amount of fulmination or "voluntary codes of conduct" will change that basic position, so either this is a call for something pointless, or a call to legally compel what is not legally required. Neither of those seems particularly constructive.

cordially,
Scofflaw

lmtduffy · 24-03-2010 11:13am

CDfm wrote: »

Exactly as Scofflaw says - why on earth is he calling for enforcement on something which is optional anyway. Absolutely bizzare.

Because if its going to be done it should be done right, for the sake of school resources and the sake of the child.

To me having lived in parts of the world where people had no rights - I appreciate those i have.

I have nothing against Mr O'Riordain and think probably he is an idealist.

Running an inner city school may not be any fun and he probably believes from his school he can change the world or at least that area via increasing the education standards of a generatiion.

So with his idealism and vision he may have become a bit of a zealot or education nazi. Idealism is fine but there are those of us who dont need or share his vision. These traits are great in a headmaster but ..............spare me.

Ok avoid filling your posts with more of your baseless idling and border line slander.
I imagine he sees kids enrolled for whatever reasons, being absent, struggling because of this, teachers having to focus more on the kids to keep them up to speed.
Because the teachers and I think that it is not right to say to the child; tough your parents don’t care lets hope you get adopted.

And also none of your raving about rights and the constitution is valid, as it all works soundly with kids in the exact same situation that are a little older, the fact they are not legally obliged to be there doesn’t matter, the schools and the parents agree to educate the child by the school rules, if that child doesn’t turn up it is bad for the child and a waste of resources keeping the child up to date and the parents are jeopardising the child’s education by not bringing him to school and that childs place in the school could be taken by a child whose parents aren’t just looking for day-care.

lmtduffy · 24-03-2010 11:17am

Scofflaw wrote: »

Oddly enough, my child is under six, and in school (and not one you're paying for). The school does request reasons for being absent - most schools will at least ask, and it seems unnecessary to me to go beyond that. A school that doesn't ask doesn't care, and parents that don't explain don't care either. No amount of fulmination or "voluntary codes of conduct" will change that basic position, so either this is a call for something pointless, or a call to legally compel what is not legally required. Neither of those seems particularly constructive.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sending a child to school irregularly, whether the parents are legally obliged to or not, is bad for the child that he/she will fall behind, bad for the class as the teacher will have to spend more time trying to keep the child up to date and bad for others who may have lost out on a place in the school and would have attended regularly.
The Cllrs idea will stop this, apparent, notion of treating schools like day care and will ensure that if parents are being irresponsible in their decision the school can do their best to make sure the child does not suffer due to this.

southsiderosie · 24-03-2010 12:30pm

Maybe I am missing something, but if you enroll your child in school and they don't show up, why would you not expect the school to follow up? Why would their age or level of development matter? In my primary school, classes started at 8, and by 9:30 the administration had rang the parents of all children who had not shown up, if the parents had not called to say they would be absent. The main reason for this was liability - once children are enrolled in school, the expectation was that the school was responsible for them from 8-3. In addition, calling the parents immediately determined if they even knew their child wasn't there - obviously with older children they may have been cutting class, but with younger children, there may have been some kind of snafu with child care, bus pick-up/drop-off etc. that they were not aware of. Finally there is a clear CYA incentive here - if a young child misses two months of school, there is no investigation, and it turns out that there were issues of abuse or neglect, etc, the first question asked of the school will be "why didn't you say anything"? Schools are often the first to notice behavioral or family problems that are signs of potential abuse or neglect - something that small children are the least able to articulate.

If you are too lazy to take your child to school everyday, then don't enroll them, or leave them in a daycare where as long as you pay your monthly fees, they don't care whether or not your child shows up (and the good ones will care).

CDfm · 24-03-2010 1:15pm

There are 2 issues here. Rights and absenteesism.

On the issue of absenteeism. It is apparent that the education programme such as the Early Start Scheme he (Mr O'Riordain) is discussing is targeted at a disadvantaged group and he has not made this clear.

Mainstream parents and schools behave the way Scofflaw and his school behave.

On balance if these kids are being enroled under an early start program with special grants & which it looks like -then it should not concern the rest of us. Its absolutely crazy that a proposal affecting the rights of everybody should be part of the discussion.

So if this issue concerns children of particular socio-economic backgrounds then the legislation is there and allowed for under the constitution to do so.

So it is a program problem and not one to be addressed with a legislative proposal as suggested by him.

It is a complex issue - our system pays lone parents and provides housing etc and creates a structural issue in society. Countries such as Belgium handle the same situation by providing for subsidised childcare thus incentivising the parents to join normal society with normal values.

You still get 25% coming through the system in Ireland who are functionally illiterate.So our system fails a lot of people and this is and has been acceptable.

So it is a complex issue and would require a major rethink on social policy.

It might be that politicians and civil servants have reached a conclusion that they are happy with this structural issue and the schemes used are token schemes that look and sound good. Of course, that would never happen in Ireland :rolleyes:.

So it depends on how you look at it.Maybe Mr O'Riordain isn't happy with his school being used as a glorified creche. Thems the breaks and the attendence reflects the values of the parents. Everyone knows that.

If you dont like it either change the benefit system or take the children away from the parents. Just leave the rest of us alone.

Laminations · 24-03-2010 1:25pm

southsiderosie wrote: »

Finally there is a clear CYA incentive here - if a young child misses two months of school, there is no investigation, and it turns out that there were issues of abuse or neglect, etc, the first question asked of the school will be "why didn't you say anything"? Schools are often the first to notice behavioral or family problems that are signs of potential abuse or neglect - something that small children are the least able to articulate.

Good post. And i think the above hits at the nub of what might be irking CDfm. I think he takes it as a slight on his parenting skills if someone even dares to question him about any aspect of his childs behaviour including attendance. If his child is off school there is a good reason so how dare anyone ask. Its other peoples kids that need the help, need to be adopted by the State. If a child misses an extended period of time there must be questions to establish whether it was a holiday (to which the school should be notified) or bereavement or something less explainable that may flag problems.

I've yet to hear what 'power' CDfm feels he would be giving to the school.

lmtduffy · 24-03-2010 1:26pm

CDfm wrote: »

There are 2 issues here. Rights and absenteesism.

On the issue of absenteeism. It is apparent that the education programme such as the Early Start Scheme he (Mr O'Riordain) is discussing is targeted at a disadvantaged group and he has not made this clear.

It is not apparent, it is not what you say it is.

Mainstream parents and schools behave the way Scofflaw and his school behave.

Doesnt matter, either way if a child is missing constantly and the parents explanation doesnt add up the school and the state ought to investigate appropiately. Doesnt matter if your mainstream or not you are still educationg a child.

On balance if these kids are being enroled under an early start program with special grants & which it looks like -then it should not concern the rest of us. Its absolutely crazy that a proposal affecting the rights of everybody should be part of the discussion.

The early start thing is not of concern, youve just pushed it forward as you were back peddling.
There is nothing crazy about it it works jsut fine after the child turns 6.

So if this issue concerns children of particular socio-economic backgrounds then the legislation is there and allowed for under the constitution to do so.

Its not.

So it is a program problem and not one to be addressed with a legislative proposal as suggested by him.

Its not.

It is a complex issue - our system pays lone parents and provides housing etc and creates a structural issue in society. Countries such as Belgium handle the same situation by providing for subsidised childcare thus incentivising the parents to join normal society with normal values.

Not relevant, Belgium waffling is waffling all the same.
(Im proud of that pun)

So it is a complex issue and would require a major rethink on social policy.

It might be that politicians and civil servants have reached a conclusion that they are happy with this structural issue and the schemes used are token schemes that look and sound good. Of course, that would never happen in Ireland :rolleyes:.

Tangent.

So it depends on how you look at it.Maybe Mr O'Riordain isn't happy with his school being used as a glorified creche. Thems the breaks.

No it doesnt.
Your looking at it from an extremely skewed point of view for no apparent reason.

Laminations · 24-03-2010 1:36pm

CDfm wrote: »

On the issue of absenteeism. It is apparent that the education programme such as the Early Start Scheme he (Mr O'Riordain) is discussing is targeted at a disadvantaged group and he has not made this clear.

On balance if these kids are being enroled under an early start program with special grants & which it looks like -then it should not concern the rest of us. Its absolutely crazy that a proposal affecting the rights of everybody should be part of the discussion.
So if this issue concerns children of particular socio-economic backgrounds then the legislation is there and allowed for under the constitution to do so.

...it is a complex issue and would require a major rethink on social policy.

What part of this are you not getting? If you enroll your child in a school they expect the child to turn up and should ask questions if and when they dont, regardless of whether you drive your precious to school in a BMW or on the back of a BMX.

Scofflaw · 24-03-2010 1:54pm

Laminations, lmtduffy, you're being excessively personal here. Whatever your issue with what CDfm is saying, comments like "Ok avoid filling your posts with more of your baseless idling and border line slander" and the crack about "your precious" are out of line - either debate the issue in a polite way or the thread will be closed.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 24-03-2010 1:58pm

lmtduffy wrote: »

And also none of your raving about rights and the constitution is valid, as it all works soundly with kids in the exact same situation that are a little older, the fact they are not legally obliged to be there doesn’t matter, the schools and the parents agree to educate the child by the school rules, if that child doesn’t turn up it is bad for the child and a waste of resources keeping the child up to date and the parents are jeopardising the child’s education by not bringing him to school and that childs place in the school could be taken by a child whose parents aren’t just looking for day-care.

lmtduffy wrote:

Sending a child to school irregularly, whether the parents are legally obliged to or not, is bad for the child that he/she will fall behind, bad for the class as the teacher will have to spend more time trying to keep the child up to date and bad for others who may have lost out on a place in the school and would have attended regularly.
The Cllrs idea will stop this, apparent, notion of treating schools like day care and will ensure that if parents are being irresponsible in their decision the school can do their best to make sure the child does not suffer due to this.

You can't have that both ways - you can't claim to be both concerned for the child, and then say that such a rule will cause the child's place to be taken by another whose parents aren't just looking for day-care. One or the other, but not both.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Laminations · 24-03-2010 2:07pm

Apologies. I'll try and be more cordial. I'll point out though that i find it highly offensive for posters to suggest that absenteeism is an inner city issue implying parents in these 'disadvantaged' areas dont give a crap and their kids should be adopted. Unacceptable absenteeism happens in every school, if your child is attending regularly this proposat doesn't affect you . Its preposterous to bring in socio-economic class.

Scofflaw · 24-03-2010 2:16pm

Laminations wrote: »

Apologies. I'll try and be more cordial. I'll point out though that i find it highly offensive for posters to suggest that absenteeism is an inner city issue implying parents in these 'disadvantaged' areas dont give a crap and their kids should be adopted. Unacceptable absenteeism happens in every school, if your child is attending regularly this proposat doesn't affect you . Its preposterous to bring in socio-economic class.

Thanks - I did wonder where the heat was coming from!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Labour Headmaster with odd ideas on school absenteeisnm and 4 year olds

Comments