Secondary School evicts junior cert student for parents not paying fees.

Guy:Incognito · 30-05-2009 10:42AM

seanybiker wrote: »

IThe mother wanted to send her other child to the school in September. What kinda eejit is she.

Sure why not? If your not going to pay the fees anyway, you may as well try maximising what your getting for nothing.:)

Seriously though, this has been going on for two years, it's not something that just cropped up all of a sudden.Stupid bint.

ninjasurfer1 wrote: »

Do you not think they should have either done it months ago or left it until after the exams?

If they leave it till after the exams surely the mother will just keep tryign to avoid the fees forever while sending the kid to another school. Removing the service while its still being used is the best way to try get payment.

That_Guy · 30-05-2009 10:45AM

poisonated wrote: »

I could be wrong here,yes its embaressing for the child.it probably could have be handled more sensetively,however,cant the girl just do the junior cert somewhere else like you can do for the leaving cert(as in the rds or something)??

I think it's the Institute you can do it in.

30-05-2009 10:48AM

themadchef wrote: »

Both the parents and the school acted in their own benefit here.

The school held on as long as they could, but to take the girl out of class and shame her in front of her class mates and friends like that was unforgivble. They did it purely to send out a message to other parents "keep paying or this will be your child next". Just tell her not to come back tomorrow.

The mother, well. she's a fool. She is the one responsible for emotionally traumatising her child in the first place. Why the fcuk keep sending her? she knew in September she couldint afford it? I heard her on the Gerry Ryan show, saying she offered monthly installments. She was very unclear about how much she offered and it came across like she offered to pay some of it, just to look like she was trying. I have no sympathy for this woman, or for the school either for the way they handled it.

Who was looking after the intrests of the child here? No one. Each party wanted a win situation and the only loser was this kid, shamed beyond belief weeks before her exams. A teenager bullied by adults :mad:, traumatised by adults :mad: and let down by adults who should have known better.

Upper class me hole, give me a porta cabin with teachers who give a sh1t and a mother who puts ME first.

I would hope that if this actually came up in court that the judge would find that it was the mother who put the child in the position and so is the one who caused her "emotional trauma".

I didn't hear GR, what was the consensus from people calling in etc?

themadchef · 30-05-2009 10:51AM

af_thefragile wrote: »

Well, if the parents owed the school 20k then i guess the school was pretty nice to let her stay for so long.

Remember how stressed you were leading up the the first biggest exams of your life? I sure do. Exactly what part of nice involves dragging a girl out of class to evict her in front of all her friends and class mates?

I don't deny the child shouldint have beeen going to school, it's the HOW, not the why i take issue with. Very unprofessional and leaes them open to this kind of exposure. Yes they let her stay till her course work was covered, and from what i heard on the radio she is also being allowed to sit the exams there as well/ It was purely a stunt to send out a warning to others in the same boat imo. Wrong on every level.

af_thefragile · 30-05-2009 10:52AM

Stekelly wrote: »

\

If they leave it till after the exams surely the mother will just keep tryign to avoid the fees forever while sending the kid to another school. Removing the service while its still being used is the best way to try get payment.

Exactly.
The school did a good job at keeping her till the full curriculum was completed.
Now she could find a place to do her junior cert somewhere else (if there is a place like that like you've got for your leaving cert.).

themadchef wrote: »

Remember how stressed you were leading up the the first biggest exams of your life? I sure do. Exactly what part of nice involves dragging a girl out of class to evict her in front of all her friends and class mates?

I don't deny the child shouldint have beeen going to school, it's the HOW, not the why i take issue with. Very unprofessional and leaes them open to this kind of exposure. Yes they let her stay till her course work was covered, and from what i heard on the radio she is also being allowed to sit the exams there as well/ It was purely a stunt to send out a warning to others in the same boat imo. Wrong on every level.

I know its mean and the girl is probably wrecked.
But the school couldn't let the parents continue taking them for a ride. If they would have let her complete the junior cert, then they could aswell forget about the money the parents owe them as the parent would just put the girl in another normal school after that.

Running a business (and yes, private school is a business and thats not a bad thing) you always have to keep making tricky decisions between practicality and humanity. Usually you have to pay off one thing for another.
If the school would go with humanity and let the girl complete her junior cert, then there was no guarantee other people might start taking the school for a ride too and stop paying the fees.
By taking the practical decision of getting the girl go, the school managed to maintain their stance that they will not take people who're taking them on a ride but they did still manage to ensure the girl completed the curriculum for the junior cert so she can be able to take the exam somewhere else.

axer · 30-05-2009 10:54AM

themadchef wrote: »

Remember how stressed you were leading up the the first biggest exams of your life? I sure do. Exactly what part of nice involves dragging a girl out of class to evict her in front of all her friends and class mates?

I don't deny the child shouldint have beeen going to school, it's the HOW, not the why i take issue with. Very unprofessional and leaes them open to this kind of exposure. Yes they let her stay till her course work was covered, and from what i heard on the radio she is also being allowed to sit the exams there as well/ It was purely a stunt to send out a warning to others in the same boat imo. Wrong on every level.

You are assuming the mother told the story correctly. The college said that is not how it happened. Why would you assume the mother who is the one at fault is telling the truth here and not the college? It is very easy for the mother to lie and exaggerate in this instance to try and get sympathy on her side.

Guy:Incognito · 30-05-2009 10:55AM

themadchef wrote: »

. Exactly what part of nice involves dragging a girl out of class to evict her in front of all her friends and class mates?
.

Just because the mother says that what happened doesnt make it true.

Either way, maybe the mother should have taken the initiative in March when she was told the game was up and the girl had to leave the school and taken her out off her own bat.

IrishTimes wrote:

Last night, the college said it was “saddened to hear these serious allegations . . . which are far removed from the reality of what occurred.

“Media reports of how the pupil was removed from a class, that some teachers discussed her family’s financial situation with her and that she was asked to pack her belongings in a black plastic bag, are incorrect.
.

Gummy Panda · 30-05-2009 10:56AM

Its a boarding school. There is no way it could be done quiet. They're providing a service and said they offered alternative payment plans. She made no effort to the agreed plans so they removed services.

€20k is not a small sum and shouldn't be just forgotten about cause a Junior cert is involved (is the Junior Cert even important anymore). Electricity is an important service and the ESB would cut you off sooner if you didn't pay.

The kid learned a valuable lesson that the Junior Cert won't teach. Don't live beyond your means.

themadchef · 30-05-2009 11:00AM

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I didn't hear GR, what was the consensus from people calling in etc?

Gerry seemed to be very supportive of the mother, but did say it was a very good school. Seemingly the head teacher is off sick and the mother felt if she had not been off things would have been different. The installment thing really stood out for me as it was quite clear she wasint offering to pay it all. I was so sickened by her tbh i switched it off so i never got to hear what Joe public thought. Sorry.

From what i heard that day, the school did offer to let her sit her exams there. I really think the mother is pissed off because once the child was taken out of class like that, she could no longer hold her "look at us and our lovely lifestyle" facade up for the neighbours. I honestly dont think that mother gave a flying fcuk for her kid. If she did, she would have sat her down and treated her like an adult, and told her she was broke. This is the Junior cert, it's not a 7 yr old we are dealing with here.

biko · 30-05-2009 11:00AM

The student’s family owed in the region of €20,000. Annual fees for boarders are over €16,000. The school has stressed that the pupil will be allowed to return to sit her Junior Cert in Alexandra College next week.

.

axer · 30-05-2009 11:02AM

themadchef wrote: »

Gerry seemed to be very supportive of the mother

Gerry is a wa'nker

themadchef · 30-05-2009 11:06AM

axer wrote: »

You are assuming the mother told the story correctly. .

Yes, totally, and if she was making it all us then she has more than money worries...

Stekelly wrote: »

.

Either way, maybe the mother should have taken the initiative in March when she was told the game was up and the girl had to leave the school and taken her out off her own bat.

Totally agree

Gummy Panda wrote: »

The kid learned a valuable lesson that the Junior Cert won't teach. Don't live beyond your means.

Should that not have been a lesson for the mother? Why punish the child, she's not paying the fees.

/ I'm off to work

, no fees there

Gummy Panda · 30-05-2009 11:10AM

themadchef wrote: »

Should that not have been a lesson for the mother? Why punish the child, she's not paying the fees.

/ I'm off to work , no fees there

Nah, the mother is fcuked. The kid has a chance of not repeating her mistakes

axer · 30-05-2009 11:11AM

themadchef wrote: »

Yes, totally, and if she was making it all us then she has more than money worries...

She seems to have more than money worries anyway for being so stupid as to bring this public. It is a big niaive to assume she is telling the truth. I don't see how she could be anymore believable than the school. In fact she has nothing to lose here so is more likely to be lying to get sympathy on her side.

themadchef wrote: »

Should that not have been a lesson for the mother? Why punish the child, she's not paying the fees.

How exactly do they punish the mother and not the child? Make the mother write out "I must pay the fees and not try and shaft the school" a hundred times or the blackboard? Or maybe make her come in for detention on a saturday for an hour or two?

Gyalist · 30-05-2009 11:17AM

themadchef wrote: »

Gerry seemed to be very supportive of the mother, but did say it was a very good school. Seemingly the head teacher is off sick and the mother felt if she had not been off things would have been different. The installment thing really stood out for me as it was quite clear she wasint offering to pay it all. I was so sickened by her tbh i switched it off so i never got to hear what Joe public thought. Sorry.

From what i heard that day, the school did offer to let her sit her exams there. I really think the mother is pissed off because once the child was taken out of class like that, she could no longer hold her "look at us and our lovely lifestyle" facade up for the neighbours. I honestly dont think that mother gave a flying fcuk for her kid. If she did, she would have sat her down and treated her like an adult, and told her she was broke. This is the Junior cert, it's not a 7 yr old we are dealing with here.

I happen to know much more about this story than I alluded to in my first post on this thread and I can tell you that the mother's story is no where near what exactly happened.

The mother's story is completely self-serving and the school's problem is that it didn't immediately respond when the allegations first became public as it wanted to respect the ex-student's privacy. Now that the mother has gone public, the story has taken on a life of it's own and the school are having to react to damaging allegations thus making them look defensive.

Aidric · 30-05-2009 11:18AM

She has covered the curriculum at this stage and will be allowed sit the exams so I don't see the big issue really.
As others have said the school provided a service for which the parents engaged. They have every right to turf her out. It's just a shame it has come in to the public domain as it benefits no party.

tallaght01 · 30-05-2009 11:39AM

I don't know the full story, obviously, but I don't see how so many people think this is ok.

They've upset this kid 3 weeks before her state exams. What did they gain from this? Nothing. Except bad publicity. I won't be sending no daughter of mine there, as I would have always naively hoped any school (even fee paying schools) hold the pupil's wellbeing above financial interests.

This 14 year old is now at the centre of a national incident. Now, enough of you guys are ****ed up over stuff that happened when you're a teenager to realise how badly this could affect her.

I just don't know why this couldn't have waited a few weeks until summer holidays. Go after the money through the normal, civilised channels. Don't use a 14 year old girl to make a point. We're supposed to look after our young people, not use them to send out a message.

It's a poxy way to behave, and i wouldn't have anything to do with that school. I'm sure they wouldn't take any offspring of mine anyway :P

Guy:Incognito · 30-05-2009 11:42AM

tallaght01 wrote: »

This 14 year old is now at the centre of a national incident..

Only because her own mother put her there. The school didnt go to the press.

The "wont somebody think of the children" line just doesnt wash. The childs own mother put her in this situation, no one else. The fees are stretchign over 2 years and she was told in March she was gettign chucked out. The mother chose to hold on till the end instead of doing things quietly and without disrupting the girl too much.

direct your scorn on the mother if you want someone to blame.

axer · 30-05-2009 11:50AM

tallaght01 wrote: »

I don't know the full story, obviously, but I don't see how so many people think this is ok.

They've upset this kid 3 weeks before her state exams. What did they gain from this? Nothing. Except bad publicity. I won't be sending no daughter of mine there, as I would have always naively hoped any school (even fee paying schools) hold the pupil's wellbeing above financial interests.

This 14 year old is now at the centre of a national incident. Now, enough of you guys are ****ed up over stuff that happened when you're a teenager to realise how badly this could affect her.

I can't understand how people think it is ok for this mother to distress her child even more by bringing this public when the mother is 100% completely wrong. She should have known that she could not pay the fees and should have moved her child to a public school sooner. I guess the school knew this mother was the type to move the child after the junior cert and never pay the fees then.

tallaght01 wrote: »

I just don't know why this couldn't have waited a few weeks until summer holidays. Go after the money through the normal, civilised channels. Don't use a 14 year old girl to make a point. We're supposed to look after our young people, not use them to send out a message.

Tell that to the mother who brought his public bringing the 14 year old under huge pressure. Before this it was not the end of the world but now it is a national story.

tallaght01 wrote: »

It's a poxy way to behave, and i wouldn't have anything to do with that school. I'm sure they wouldn't take any offspring of mine anyway :P

It is a poxy way for the mother to behave. She should be ashamed of herself and should be publicly apologising to the school and the 14 year old for the embarressment caused by her being such an idiot.

tallaght01 · 30-05-2009 11:50AM

Stekelly wrote: »

Only because her own mother put her there. The school didnt go to the press.

The "wont somebody think of the children" line just doesnt wash. The childs own mother put her in this situation, no one else. The fees are stretchign over 2 years and she was told in March she was gettign chucked out. The mother chose to hold on till the end instead of doing things quietly and without disrupting the girl too much.

direct your scorn on the mother if you want someone to blame.

Her ma hasn't set up an educational institution, with state authority to educate and nurture our kids.

Regardless of what her oul one did, this could definitely have waited a few more weeks. Give me one reason why this couldn't have waited until the end of the junior cert.
Parents can be dumb, but we can't choose her parents. Schools are supposed to be run by people we trust with our kids!!!!

If you think the important issue here is whether her ma or the school is worse, then you're deluded. There's a 14 year old kid somewhere listening to radio debates about her, while she's trying to study for exams.

tallaght01 · 30-05-2009 11:53AM

axer wrote: »

I can't understand how people think it is ok for this mother to distress her child even more by bringing this public when the mother is 100% completely wrong. She should have known that she could not pay the fees and should have moved her child to a public school sooner. I guess the school knew this mother was the type to move the child after the junior cert and never pay the fees then.

Tell that to the mother who brought his public bringing the 14 year old under huge pressure. Before this it was not the end of the world but now it is a national story.

It is a poxy way for the mother to behave. She should be ashamed of herself and should be publicly apologising to the school and the 14 year old for the embarressment caused by her being such an idiot.

So, as adults, we are arguing it's ok for a school to take direct, humiliating action against a child because of the actions of her parents? It couldn't have waited 5 or 6 weeks? It's OK to embarrass a child at probably the most delicate age of psychological development, because of her folks? And they couldn't have waited a few weeks?

I just wanted to check I read that right.

tallaght01 · 30-05-2009 12:00PM

Mr S, what couldn't have waited another 5 weeks?

What was the urgency?

axer · 30-05-2009 12:01PM

tallaght01 wrote: »

So, as adults, we are arguing it's ok for a school to take direct, humiliating action against a child because of the actions of her parents?

It wasn't humiliating until the mother took it public. The school has already publicly said that the mother is lying about how the child was taken out of the school. She used emotive language with black bags and bring dragged out in front her classmates.

tallaght01 wrote: »

It couldn't have waited 5 or 6 weeks?
It's OK to embarrass a child at probably the most delicate age of psychological development, because of her folks? And they couldn't have waited a few weeks?

I believe it happened in March. Which is like 3-4 months.

It was her parents that embarressed her - not the school.

The school did not make this public!

Mark200 · 30-05-2009 12:06PM

tallaght01 wrote: »

Mr S, what couldn't have waited another 5 weeks?

What was the urgency?

The point is that she had more than a years worth of fees that she hadn't paid. The school would have been well within their rights to throw out the kid a year ago by the sounds of it. But they didn't, they waited until she was finished her Junior Cert curriculum... and they're somehow at fault? The only reason why this girl is studying while there are debates going on around her is because her mother went public. She could have done nothing, acknowledged that she should have paid, and allowed her daughter to use these extra three weeks to do a bit of extra study in a quiet peaceful atmosphere. Also, the school has said that the girl will be allowed to sit her JC in the school. It's quite obvious that the school has taken the girl's wellbeing into consideration a lot more than her own mother has.

tallaght01 · 30-05-2009 12:09PM

axer wrote: »

It wasn't humiliating until the mother took it public. The school has already publicly said that the mother is lying about how the child was taken out of the school. She used emotive language with black bags and bring dragged out in front her classmates.

I believe it happened in March. Which is like 3-4 months.

It was her parents that embarressed her - not the school.

The school did not make this public!

So, to summarise.....

1) It's OK, because they only threw her out 10 weeks before the junior cert, rather than 5 weeks.

2) Things are only embarrassing for the kid because her ma brought it to the press.

They're dire arguments. 10 weeks, or 5 weeks...it's not enough time to find and settle a kid into a new school before state exams.
5 or 10 weeks, it could have waited until after the JC. Things that happen in school, in front of peers, have a huge impact on the wellbeing of young teenagers.

The ma may have taken it to the press, but the public are interested in it for a good reason!!
Like I said, we can't choose who this kid's parents are, but we should expect certain standards from those running our schools.

There is simply no reason why this couldn't have waited until after the JC. You can smokescreen things with her ma all you like, but that school should get a grip.

tallaght01 · 30-05-2009 12:13PM

Fine. If you guys think that the issue of money is more important than the issue of the kid's education, then fine.

If you think that throwing a kid out of school in the revision period before state exams is somehow doing her a favour, then fine. I think that's the most important time in exam preparation.

If you think schools are just businesses, then fine.

If you think having a dumb parent means it's ok to embarrass a young girl in front of her peers, then fine.

If you think it's easy to resettle a 14 year old girl in a new school in 10 weeks, while she prepares for her 1st state exam, then fine.

There's nothing I can say to the above. I can only express shock. Except its not shock, or even surprise, sadly.

like clockwork! · 30-05-2009 12:25PM

Only knobs send their kids to fee-paying schools when they arn't really rich.

axer · 30-05-2009 12:26PM

tallaght01 wrote: »

So, to summarise.....

1) It's OK, because they only threw her out 10 weeks before the junior cert, rather than 5 weeks.

I'm sure they had already been telling the mother if she could not pay she will have to move her child out. She was still allowed to sit her exams there so whats the big deal?

tallaght01 wrote: »

2) Things are only embarrassing for the kid because her ma brought it to the press.

They are only embarressing on a national scale because the mother brought it to the press. It would not have been that big of a deal otherwise.

tallaght01 wrote: »

They're dire arguments. 10 weeks, or 5 weeks...it's not enough time to find and settle a kid into a new school before state exams.
5 or 10 weeks, it could have waited until after the JC. Things that happen in school, in front of peers, have a huge impact on the wellbeing of young teenagers.

No, the mother had more than a year to find her child another school. You don't really believe the $hite the mother has been spewing about being thrown out in front of her classmates and been handed a black plastic bag to empty out her locker do you? Maybe this child needs to get used to being embarressed by her mother since I doubt an idiot like that would change.

tallaght01 wrote: »

The ma may have taken it to the press, but the public are interested in it for a good reason!!

Just like they are interested in who britany spears is dating now.

tallaght01 wrote: »

Like I said, we can't choose who this kid's parents are, but we should expect certain standards from those running our schools.

The school is a fee paying school - not a charity. If you want free education go to a public school.

tallaght01 wrote: »

There is simply no reason why this couldn't have waited until after the JC. You can smokescreen things with her ma all you like, but that school should get a grip.

Firstly, the junior cert is NOT important and the girl had time to study at home before sitting her exams in the school.

Secondly, I believe the mother was well warned before this and refused to pay or sort it out.

Thirdly, her mother is obviously an idiot and the school cannot and should not have to make up for her. The child needs to get used to it because it aint changing.

axer · 30-05-2009 12:30PM

tallaght01 wrote: »

Fine. If you guys think that the issue of money is more important than the issue of the kid's education, then fine.

If you think that throwing a kid out of school in the revision period before state exams is somehow doing her a favour, then fine. I think that's the most important time in exam preparation.

If you think schools are just businesses, then fine.

If you think having a dumb parent means it's ok to ambarrass a young girl in front of her peers, then fine.

There's nothing I can say to the above. I can only express shock. Except its not shock, or even surprise, sadly.

I live in the real world.

Aidric · 30-05-2009 12:35PM

tallaght01 wrote: »

Fine. If you guys think that the issue of money is more important than the issue of the kid's education, then fine.

If you think that throwing a kid out of school in the revision period before state exams is somehow doing her a favour, then fine. I think that's the most important time in exam preparation.

If you think schools are just businesses, then fine.

If you think having a dumb parent means it's ok to embarrass a young girl in front of her peers, then fine.

If you think it's easy to resettle a 14 year old girl in a new school in 10 weeks, while she prepares for her 1st state exam, then fine.

There's nothing I can say to the above. I can only express shock. Except its not shock, or even surprise, sadly.

I think you need to climb down from the moral high horse there. If you or I entered a contract for professional services than the onus is on the client to pay the fees in lieu of that service.
Nobody disagrees with you with regards the embarrassment and upheaval caused to the young girl, as far as I can see. The mother is clearly the issue here. She has behaved irresponsibly by not paying the fees but taking the story in to the public domain has achieved the notoriety the young girl could have done without at this stressful time.

Secondary School evicts junior cert student for parents not paying fees.

Comments