nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Parents of suspended Leaving Cert pupils to take legal action

Cabaal

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0818/1224322386260.html

Some 113 of the 120 sixth-year pupils at the High School in Rathgar were suspended on May 18th after an incident on May 4th in which they locked themselves into the sixth-year common room for 55 minutes and played dance music.

There were 2½ days of lessons remaining.

Pretty sure the same thing would have happened to my class when I was in school had we done something so stupid, perhaps due to the fact that the school is a fee paying school the kids thought they'd get away with it so close to the end of the year?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

drkpower

Biggins wrote: »

Time was clearly a factor here as exams were coming up. Punishments would have to be metered out immediately. That much is very obvious to most.

It would be ruddy stupid to tell an ex-pupil six months later after they had ultimately left, that they were suspended! Eh?

Why was time a factor? The code of conduct calls for a meeting with the parents - that could have happened that evening. If there was a large group of parents involved, they could have had a group meeting. It doesnt appear that there was even at attempt do follow the school's code of conduct.

Your original point was effectively 'they broke the rules - What the hell did they expect to happen in reaction? '. The answer to that is: the schools code of conduct would be invoked - it wasnt.

Paz-CCFC

Suspending the entire year for what they did was absolutely ridiculous. When I was in 6th year, we locked our teacher out of the room - when we let her back in, she didn't suspend the lot of us, she retaliated by locking us in. It's called having a laugh, as kids generally do.

But of course, the fact that these kids were "priviliged" means that they deserved it. The reverse snobbery that goes on here sometimes is laughable.

drkpower

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How could they arrange meetings with parents and go through the full process with 2.5 days left in the year ?

A meeting/meetings could have been held that evening.

Tombi!

drkpower wrote: »

A meeting/meetings could have been held that evening.

Not on such short notice.

Chuck Stone

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

But of course, the fact that these kids were "priviliged" means that they deserved it. The reverse snobbery that goes on here sometimes is laughable.

I wholeheartedly agree. There seems to be a lot of joy taken from the suspension of these kids because they are attending a fee-paying school.

Bunch of kids being kids and they're treated like deviants. Ridiculous overreaction by some gobshite authoritarian jobsworth.

Biggins

drkpower wrote: »

Why was time a factor?

Again - for the second time: Time was clearly a factor here as exams were coming up.
You must have missed that bit previously so I bolded it for you.)

drkpower wrote: »

The code of conduct calls for a meeting with the parents - that could have happened that evening. If there was a large group of parents involved, they could have had a group meeting. It doesnt appear that there was even at attempt do follow the school's code of conduct.

Your original point was effectively 'they broke the rules - What the hell did they expect to happen in reaction? '. The answer to that is: the schools code of conduct would be invoked - it wasnt.

I'm sure a meeting could have been called for - and its seems one was as soon as it was possible we might assess.
In the meantime - GIVEN THE TIME CONSTRAINTS - those that could be immediately punished, we also might assume because there was clearer evidence of their involvement, were dealt with so that all could move on and get on with their lives.

Still no link for the schools rules of conduct that you seem to know.
If you have one, it would be much appreciated please.

You say:

It doesnt appear that there was even at attempt do follow the school's code of conduct.

Have you any clear evidence to back this up?
I'm sure of the kids parents and their solicitors would be glad of your evidence.

drkpower wrote: »

A meeting/meetings could have been held that evening.

For over 200 parents?
Yea - I can see that happening!

drkpower

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

drkpower wrote: »

A meeting/meetings could have been held that evening.

Not on such short notice.

why not? The school has the phone number of every parent.I'm sure any parent would make themselves available in such circumstances at short notice, dont you?

drkpower

Biggins wrote: »

Again - for the second time: Time was clearly a factor here as exams were coming up.
You must have missed that bit previously so I bolded it for you.)

No, I got that. A meeting could have been held that evening. Phone the parents; tell them their kids are on the brink of suspension and that there is a meeting that evening to hear from them (as per the code of conduct). Im sure the parents would make themselves available in such circumstances; dont you?

Biggins wrote: »

Still no link for the schools rules of conduct that you seem to know.

Google' High School code of conduct'; its not rocket science.

Biggins wrote: »

Have you any clear evidence to back this up?

The IT article. Did you read it? It says that several parents who have spoken to The Irish Times say no appeals were heard and “just one or two parents” had meetings with Mr Forrest.

Tombi!

drkpower wrote: »

why not? The school has the phone number of every parent.I'm sure any parent would make themselves available in such circumstances at short notice, dont you?

There will always be some that simply can't go.

RMD

IMO an overreaction but I can see why they had to make an example of them. In the school I went to we had a 40 minute lunch, throughout the whole of 6th year we were allowed in our unoccupied classrooms and play music throughout the break if we wished. In this case though, it was an organized disturbance and a "deliberate breach of rules" I suppose you could say. If the school didn't suspend them the following years would try to top each previous years prank.

The parents on the otherhand are a right bunch of tits. Their kids knowingly broke the rules of their school. The school didn't ruin their childrens' "reputations", their children did when they deliberately defied the rules of the school. I went to a private school, fortunately I can say on the behalf of the vast majority of the people in my year we'd all consider these parents and students a bunch of tits. Just because they might get away with this shít at home doesn't mean they will in school.

In all honesty as well, what a poxy "prank" to play on the school, it doesn't even sound funny. You've been in the school for 6 years, leave on a good note and be well remembered for christ's sake.

drkpower

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

There will always be some that simply can't go.

So?
Does that mean you just dont bother to invoke the code of conduct?

Biggins

drkpower wrote: »

No, I got that. A meeting could have been held that evening. Phone the parents; tell them their kids are on the brink of suspension and that there is a meeting that evening to hear from them (as per the code of conduct). Im sure the parents would make themselves available in such circumstances; dont you?

Google' High School code of conduct'; its not rocket science.

The IT article. Did you read it? It says that several parents who have spoken to The Irish Times say no appeals were heard and “just one or two parents” had meetings with Mr Forrest.

1. Not every parent can attend a meeting with a few hours notice - never mind the ones that actually might be away or working night-shifts (and some might not be able to further afford to take off) !

2. Googling a random High School code of conduct - is NOT the same as the one exactly used by the school involved.
There is always differences - but you seem to know this schools one exactly!
Please let us know the exact full "Code of Conduct" rules for this school in particular.

3. I'm guessing that the more serious ones were dealed with first - and we might say "Rightly so" ?

So the school might not have had the time to get everyone in at short notice - given that there is 200+ parents this should not come as a shock to any half dim-witted person.
...But still because some poor little 'Jonny' or 'Mary's' parents didn't get royal treatment and get to personally see the schools rep's first, now they are using it as an excuse?

Stuff them!
Maybe next time, they will actually teach their kids to stick with some rules!
If they can't even obey school rules - what chance does bloody some of them have out in the further real world!

drkpower

Biggins wrote: »

1. Not every parent can attend a meeting with a few hours notice - never mind the ones that actually might be away or working night-shifts (and some might not be able to further afford to take off) !

So because some may not be able to turn up, you just dont bother then? Right?!

Biggins wrote: »

2. Googling a random High School code of conduct - is NOT the same as the one exactly used by the school involved.
There is always differences - but you seem to know this schools one exactly!
Please let us know the exact full "Code of Conduct" rules for this school in particular.

http://www.highschooldublin.com/Downloadable%20documents/Parents'%20Information%20Booklet.pdf
Seriously, were u not able to do that yourself?

Biggins wrote: »

...But still because some poor little 'Jonny' or 'Mary's' parents didn't get royal treatment ........

No; just the treatment stipulated in the school's code of conduct.

Biggins wrote: »

Maybe next time, they will actually teach their kids to stick with some rules!

By breaking their own?

Paz-CCFC

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I wholeheartedly agree. There seems to be a lot of joy taken from the suspension of these kids because they are attending a fee-paying school.

Bunch of kids being kids and they're treated like deviants. Ridiculous overreaction by some gob****e authoritarian jobsworth.

It's a very strange theme of After Hours, to always have a go at pupils who've attended private, fee-paying schools. It's hardly the kids fault for being born into a bit of wealth, and it's hardly the parents fault for wanting to use their money for what they feel are in the best interests of their child.

Biggins wrote: »

1. Not every parent can attend a meeting with a few hours notice - never mind the ones that actually might be away or working night-shifts (and some might not be able to further afford to take off) !

Although not all would have been able to make it, surely it's better to be able to deal with some of the parents, rather than just issuing the suspension straight off.

Maybe next time, they will actually teach their kids to stick with some rules!
If they can't even obey school rules - what chance does bloody some of them have out in the further real world!

does bloody some of them have out in the further real world![/QUOTE]

Ah, c'mon now. You'd struggle to find a kid that didn't break some school rule. It's all part of growing up. Just because they have, doesn't mean they'll all grow up to be scumbags.

who_me

"Our children’s reputations have been damaged."

No. Not really. Lots of us did stupid things when we were in school, and now no one cares or even remembers. I remember some stupid leaving cert stunts back in my (small town) school (pile of crap placed on a teacher's desk, a herd of cattle was run through the school yard, someone brought in a goat's head and placed it in a basketball net of the neighbouring girl's school...) but I can't for the life of me remember who did them.

If you're concerned about their reputation, do you think bringing the matter to the media's and national attention is a good idea? You've taken a mole-hill and made a mountain out of it.

And who has damaged those children's reputation? The school didn't suspend them for theft, or assault; but for misconduct. Which is a good description of what they did. If anyone damaged their reputation, it's the children themselves.

"caused huge upset and derailment when these children should have been supported in focusing on the exams"

Sure, they sounded very focused on their exams. And I'm sure a court case and media attention will help them focus.

Yowza....

Biggins

drkpower wrote: »

So because some may not be able to turn up, you just dont bother then? Right?!

Aaa... they DID bother - meetings were held for some, those that could possibly attend as soon as possible!
...Did you miss of forget about that bit?

Thank you for the direct link.

Although not all would have been able to make it, surely it's better to be able to deal with some of the parents, rather than just issuing the suspension straight off.

Some of the parents were quicker attended to - even other here have stated this or alluded to it.

Again (and its sad that the bloody obvious has to be even stated a second time - never mind just once): Time was clearly a factor here as exams were coming up.
Duh!

Ah, c'mon now. You'd struggle to find a kid that didn't break some school rule. It's all part of growing up. Just because they have, doesn't mean they'll all grow up to be scumbags.

...Which is why I said:

If they can't even obey school rules - what chance does bloody some of them have out in the further real world!

"All" ?
Where did I say "all" ???

drkpower

Biggins wrote: »

Aaa... they DID bother - meetings were held for some, those that could possibly attend as soon as possible!
...Did you miss of forget about that bit?

Yes, I missed that bit. The IT article doesnt mention it. Where did you get that information from?

Paz-CCFC

Biggins wrote: »

...Which is why I said:

"All" ?
Where did I say "all" ???

It was a misreading on my part. Apologies.

But I still think you're hyperbolising the situation. If they caused vandalism to the school or ran naked through it or something like that, I'd agree with you. That would be unacceptable behaviour, and it could very well continue with them down the line. But to ask "what chance have some in the real world" all because they locked themselves into a room and played a bit of music is simply overstating what happened.

IveSeenFire

jank wrote: »

They broke the rules yet cant take the punishment, Muppets the lot of them. Welcome to the entitlement generation.

Haha we're the entitlement generation and not the spoilt brat baby boomers? Yeah, right...

Biggins

drkpower wrote: »

Yes, I missed that bit. The IT article doesnt mention it. Where did you get that information from?

Well besides other reports, let me quote your own:

Originally Posted by drkpower
...Apparently, the parents of any pupil involved in a serious breach of discipline “will be invited to a meeting with the year head and the principal or deputy principal . . . The details of the breach will be read to the parents and the pupil’s contribution to the school . . . in the past will be taken into account”.

That doesnt appear to have happened in the majority of cases.

So above in the last line - your previously saying that some meetings did indeed take place or are you back-tracking from your above statement?

O' and regards the "Code of Conduct" - page 6/7:

Serious breaches of discipline

This policy exists to ensure that the interests of parents, pupils. staff and the school are fairly served on the rare occasions when a pupil is accused of a serious breach of discipline or of an accumulation of other offences which may result in a lengthy suspension or in expulsion.

Breaches of discipline such as the following may be regarded as serious - vandalism, theh. substance abuse. malicious injury, fighting, inappropriate sexual behaviour, gross misbehaviour such as striking or threatening a teacher or another person, repeatedly defying or swearing at a teacher, repeated or serious bullying.
The parents of the pupil concemed will be invited to an interview with the Year Head and the Principal or Deputy Principal. The pupil may be present for all or part, The details ofthe breach will be read to the parents and the pupil‘s contribution to the school, clubs. sports. academic record, character. conduct in the past, etc. will be taken into account.

The Principal or Deputy Principal may consult with other staff andfor call a meeting ofthe Serious Discipline Committee of the school and will then decide on a course of action and will communicate hisvher decision to the parents (and usually the pupil). There will be, in case of long (more than three days) suspensions or expulsions. a right of appeal to the Appeals Committee of the Board of`Govemors. The appeal will check that proper procedures have been followed and that the sanction is commensurate with the breach. The members ofthe appeal committee will be impartial and will not have been involved in the investigation or the original decision cottceming the sanction to be imposed. The decision of the Appeals C ommittee is made on behalf ofthe Board and is final, front the viewpoint ofthe school. A further appeal. to the Department of Education & Science. may be possible in some circumstances. according to the regulations in force at the time. This is known as the Section 29 appeal procedure (of the Education Act 1998). Details are available from the Principal or from the National Education Welfare Board.

Now if the offences which they were suspended for are NOT listed under the section of "Serious breaches of discipline" - the above "The parents of the pupil concemed will be invited to an interview with the Year Head and the Principal or Deputy Principal." DOES NOT have to rigidly apply.

I think you might have forgot to mention that bit.

Punishment was issued as quickly as possible according to the other sections and conditions therein attached.

pontia

pampered little ***** and arsehole parents,why are our taxes funding these places

Duggy747

"Our children’s reputations have been damaged."

Yes, maintain the image of your delicate little kittens.

Biggins

It should also be added that the schools "Code of Conduct" actully refers to "End of term" events - the school has gone to the bother of being very clear on these matters and times:

End of term behaviour.

The behaviour of all pupils at the end of term is expected to be to the same standard as during the remainder of the year. The school
provides a reception and graduation ceremony and the Parents' Association facilitates a party for Fomt 6. This occasion is planned
in consultation with the pupils and has proved to be very successful. "End of term" misbehaviour is not tolerated at this school and
it is important that parents and pupils fully understand that the sanctions which may be applied include expulsion from the school,
necessitating pupils to find an altemative venue for their Certilicate examinations.

1. The school even gives the well behaved pupils a party and
2. It tells them exactly what might happen if they don't conduct themselves accordingly.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Somehow I can't see any judge running with this as it would open the floodgates for parents to blame and sue schools for every ridiculous reason if their brats gets suspended or expelled.

drkpower

Biggins wrote: »

So above in the last line - your previously saying that some meetings did indeed take place or are you back-tracking from your above statement?

I was quoting the IT article. It stated that 'one or two' parents met with the school. You said that 'meetings were held for some, those that could possibly attend as soon as possible!'. Your contention is a far sight different to what was stated in the IT article.

What is your source for your contention?

Biggins wrote: »

Now if the offences which they were suspended for are NOT listed under the section of "Serious breaches of discipline" - the above "The parents of the pupil concemed will be invited to an interview with the Year Head and the Principal or Deputy Principal." DOES NOT have to rigidly apply.

I think you might have forgot to mention that bit.

The list of offences is specified to be a non exhaustive list. If swearing a teacher is classed as a serious breach of discipline, one would have thought that the students' actions in this case would also be one, not to mention the mere fact that it was a breach of discipline sufficient to warrant an immediate suspension in the immediate run up to a critical examination.

skelliser

rathgar

says it all!

stuck up southside ****

Biggins

CJC999 wrote: »

Somehow I can't see any judge running with this as it would open the floodgates for parents to blame and sue schools for every ridiculous reason if their brats gets suspended or expelled.

Not a hope in hell.

While some parents pride might be hurt in their little darlings having been punished for their own activities (shock - horror!), a judge might take into consideration a schools legal position of "Legal Right of Care" towards other pupils and also see that any punishments that have been metered out, have been in accordance with the rules and regulation of the Department of Education.

Biggins

drkpower wrote: »

I was quoting the IT article. It stated that 'one or two' parents met with the school. You said that 'meetings were held for some, those that could possibly attend as soon as possible!'. Your contention is a far sight different to what was stated in the IT article.

What is your source for your contention?

What?
What are you on about?

Are you saying that some meetings now DID NOT take place?
...Or are you saying that some meetings DID take place?
Make up your mind.

You stated earlier that some meetings didn't take place "...in the majority of cases." - so we are left to conclude alone from that, that your espousing that some meetings DID take place!

drkpower wrote: »

The list of offences is specified to be a non exhaustive list. If swearing a teacher is classed as a serious breach of discipline, one would have thought that the students' actions in this case would also be one, not to mention the mere fact that it was a breach of discipline sufficient to warrant an immediate suspension in the immediate run up to a critical examination.

What has all that crap got to do with anything?
Now your trying to squirm out of exact detail by using the term "non exhaustive list" - the 24 page document goes into very much detail about a lot of things.

The fact is that, for what they were suspended for, is NOT listed under the section "Serious breaches of discipline".

Any stupid notion that for every broken rule, parents must be called in, would be daft.
...So the school as such, sets up such procedures for "Serious breaches of discipline" instead.

Let me spell it out, they broke lesser rules so they got suspended.
To quote their very own document:

It is the duty of every pupil to attend school regularly and punctually, to contribute positively to the learning environment in every class, to take responsibility for his/her own work and to have a good standard of behaviour. lt is the responsibility of every member of staff to encourage such attitudes and to take appropriate action when pupils do not co-operate. The consequence of such is a productive, stable and happy working environment. The consequence of detracting from the leaming atmosphere is a less productive class where the pupil has invited sanctions to be used. lt should be emphasised that the choice of consequences, good or bad. is entirely that of the pupil.

drkpower

Biggins wrote: »

You stated earlier that some meetings didn't take place "...in the majority of cases." - so we are left to conclude alone from that, that your espousing that some meetings DID take place!

I always said some meeting took place ('one or two' as per the IT article).

You have said that 'meetings were held for some, those that could possibly attend as soon as possible!'. What is your source for your contention?

Biggins wrote: »

The fact is that, for what they were suspended for, is NOT listed under the section "Serious breaches of discipline".

The list is non-exhaustive. Note the words 'such as'.

Biggins

drkpower wrote: »

I always said some meeting took place ('one or two' as per the IT article).

You have said that 'meetings were held for some, those that could possibly attend as soon as possible!'. What is your source for your contention?

The list is non-exhaustive. Note the words 'such as'.

Given the fact that (third time) "Time was clearly a factor here as exams were coming up."

- we are left work out - and its not rocket science - that if even some meetings were indeed held and you espouse this yourself - then they were done so as soon as possible.
No?
Are you saying they weren't? Can you show this?

End of the day - they broke the rules - they were suspended (I suspect, in accordance also with any rules which might be found in Department of Education guidelines alone, which the school heads would be very much aware of) and they were punished as soon as deemed possible given the time constrains.

They got what they deserved - they reaped what they sowed.
Unless we hear of cases of false imprisonment - any of the little darlings could have at any stage left the classroom/building where the antics was going on.
...You know the antics that had meant people were at risk within locked rooms and (I believe) covered up windows, never mind blaring music that might have stopped the hearing of any possible fire alarms and blocked access to fire escape routes?