Parents of suspended Leaving Cert pupils to take legal action

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?

Witcher

They did bring it on themselves but jesus that was a bit harsh.

When I did my leaving 3 years ago, the week before we finished we bought about 2000 rubber ducks that the local Tesco was selling off and put them all over the school..the carpark..hallways..and the staff room(in the cereal boxes, cupboards etc.)..everywhere we could and the staff just laughed it off and took pictures.

drkpower

Biggins wrote: »

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?

You said that 'meetings were held for some, those that could possibly attend as soon as possible!'. Are you saying that only one or two parents out of 200ish could attend as soon as possible?

Or did you just make that up?!

Biggins wrote: »

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.

It appears they were not suspended in accordance with their own code of conduct. That is likely to be the basis of any challenge.

By the way, what Dept Of Education guidelines are you referring to? Any?

Biggins

Blay wrote: »

They did bring it on themselves but jesus that was a bit harsh.

When I did my leaving 3 years ago, the week before we finished we bought about 2000 rubber ducks that the local Tesco was selling off and put them all over the school..the carpark..hallways..and the staff room(in the cereal boxes, cupboards etc.)..everywhere we could and the staff just laughed it off and took pictures.

Your lucky they laughed it off to be honest.
Others might not.

While I was actually doing my leaving cert' many years go, a number of pupils for some mad reason, decided to run around the school and let off a number of fire extinguishers and disrupted others.
They were leaving mid-examination time, immediately expelled.

Some get off light, some don't - some schools apply the rules as they have been stated to parents, who been made aware of at the start of every term.

steddyeddy

Its laugable people talking about reverse snobbery. These kids got a chance to be in a school that under privelaged kids would kill for and they acted like monkeys. I take satisfaction that a school that rewards kids for privelage and not merit has taken action. Its also the parents who annoy me in all this.

Witcher

Biggins wrote: »

Your lucky they laughed it off to be honest.
Others might not.

That's the difference in schools I guess, we just knew they would laugh at it, we were a small year only about 50 in it and they knew us all really well so that played a part too...I'll tell that story to my grandkids:pac:

dirtyden

I know schools have to be careful with discipline, but it did seem a harsh punishment for a fairly innocuous last days of school stunt.

It seems to me there is more to this story than is being let on.

CavanCrew

Take the punishment jaysus.

Few years back we thought it a great idea to lock ourselves in the computer room, took the keys from the VPs office, obviously got caught.

Biggins

drkpower wrote: »

You said that 'meetings were held for some, those that could possibly attend as soon as possible!'. Are you saying that only one or two parents out of 200ish could attend as soon as possible?

Or did you just make that up?!

It appears they were not suspended in accordance with their own code of conduct. That is likely to be the basis of any challenge.

By the way, what Dept Of Education guidelines are you referring to? Any?

1. I'm assuming (I hope it not stupid to do so!) that the school decided to call parents in as soon as it was possible - and not wait six months or six years!
Call me nuts for thinking that!

2. It appears TO YOU they were suspended not in accordance with their own code of conduct.
It appears to me by my reading alone of their "Code of Conduct" document that they were in every right to suspend students (for how long again was it?)

3. I'm referring to the "Child Protection Guide-lines For Post Primary Schools" guidelines as mentioned in their own "Code of Conduct" which might apply - page five or the Education Welfare Act 2000 which is also mentioned in their document.
You might have missed that bit too!

Zab

Biggins wrote: »

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?

You're consistently implying that there was an attempt to contact all parents for a meeting, but only two were possible. This is obviously nonsense, more likely they set up meetings with the parents of those that they deemed ring leaders, or just the parents that pushed the issue.

You also keep saying that the exams were imminent, even though the incident took place on the 4th of May, the suspension didn't happen until the 18th of May and the exams started on the 6th of June.

So, the majority of your arguments are baseless.

Personally I think this was an overreaction by a newly appointed principal. Suing the school also seems like a silly overreaction, although admittidly I'm not sure if your school record gets attached if you apply for the likes of Oxford or Yale.

steddyeddy

Zab wrote: »

Biggins wrote: »

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?

You're consistently implying that there was an attempt to contact all parents for a meeting, but only two were possible. This is obviously nonsense, more likely they set up meetings with the parents of those that they deemed ring leaders, or just the parents that pushed the issue.

You also keep saying that the exams were imminent, even though the incident took place on the 4th of May, the suspension didn't happen until the 18th of May and the exams started on the 6th of June.

So, the majority of your arguments are baseless.

Personally I think this was an overreaction by a newly appointed principal. Suing the school also seems like a silly overreaction, although admittidly I'm not sure if your school record gets attached if you apply for the likes of Oxford or Yale.

As an undergraduate yes but not as a post grad.(re your yale question)

2 stroke

Those that think the school over reacted, please google the stardust disaster. They should not have locked the doors.

Biggins

Zab wrote: »

You're consistently implying that there was an attempt to contact all parents for a meeting, but only two were possible. This is obviously nonsense, more likely they set up meetings with the parents of those that they deemed ring leaders, or just the parents that pushed the issue.

You also keep saying that the exams were imminent, even though the incident took place on the 4th of May, the suspension didn't happen until the 18th of May and the exams started on the 6th of June.

So, the majority of your arguments are baseless.

Personally I think this was an overreaction by a newly appointed principal. Suing the school also seems like a silly overreaction, although admittidly I'm not sure if your school record gets attached if you apply for the likes of Oxford or Yale.

"You're consistently implying that there was an attempt to contact all parents for a meeting"

Aaa... no.
Your saying that I've been "consistently implying that there was an attempt to contact all parents for a meeting".

Please post exactly where I have stated consistently "...there was an attempt to contact all parents for a meeting."
Please do!
...Or just stop with this nonsense!

"consistently" ?
...Seriously?

2. If you look at the dates - you will remember pre-leaving test exams are often done to help a student (and teacher) gauge where their weaknesses are.
Again, this is not rocket science to most here.
Name me a school in Ireland that might not do these tests anyway in close proximity to the actual leaving exams just a couple of months away.
You seem to be missing a lot of things - and seeing others that simply was not posted.

Frankly, the majority of your arguments are opinion and even more baseless considering actual real facts and/or timeline events - and not just opinion.

Zab

Biggins wrote: »

"You're consistently implying that there was an attempt to contact all parents for a meeting"

Aaa... no.
Your saying that I've been "consistently implying that there was an attempt to contact all parents for a meeting.

Please post exactly where I have stated "...there was an attempt to contact all parents for a meeting."
Please do!
...Or just stop with this nonsense!

It's not me spouting nonsense on this issue. I said you've implied it rather than outright stated it, but seeing as you ask:

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?

...

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

This clearly implies that the school attempted to schedule meetings with all

2. If you look at the dates - you will remember pre-leaving test exams are often done to help a student (and teacher) gauge where their weaknesses are.

Mock leaving certificate three weeks before the leaving certificate? More unadulterated bull****.

Again, this is not rocket science to most here.
Name me a school in Ireland that might not do these tests anyway in close proximity to the actual leaving exams just a couple of months away.

You seem to be missing a lot of things - and seeing others that simply was not posted.

Frankly, the majority of your arguments are opinion and even more baseless considering actual real facts and not just opinion.

Clearly, this must be like rocket science to you. You haven't refuted a single thing I've posted.

Zab

steddyeddy wrote: »

As an undergraduate yes but not as a post grad.(re your yale question)

This could be a very important fact if a suspension hurts your chances.

Cienciano

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

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.

Suspended for the last couple of days in 6th year is nothing, when I was in school most of the teachers just told us to study in the last few days. Plenty of people just took them off to study.
And did your dad send your teacher a solicitors letter threatening to sue your teacher after she locked you lot in the room?
That's the difference between this "privileged" lot and your lot. You took the piss and accepted your punishment.

Grimebox

Cabaal wrote: »

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





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?

Not so thinly veiled fee-school bashing thread

Biggins

For the record, I stated:

Aaa... they DID bother - meetings were held for some, those that could possibly attend as soon as possible!

That was posted after the following was posted by drkpower:

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.

Now unless some here are playing thick, we can take it that other prior to myself have stated or espoused that some (O' look at that - I had the hard neck to say "some" again also) meeting took place.
Amazing that where I state "some" - the blind here somehow can still see "all" !!!

Carry on being pedantic drkpower.

The fact is that - for the forth time - "Time was clearly a factor here as exams were coming up."

Now, either people here can silly bitch about the exams being too far away or NOW, they were too close!
Again - make up your mind folks!

Long story short - in order to suspend some due to lets see maybe "Time was clearly a factor here as exams were coming up." - the school did what it did.

...And in my bloody opinion, they were bloody right!

Amen.

Heroditas

Also, the principal was assaulted during the incident.
Maybe he should counter-sue.....

Biggins

Heroditas wrote: »

Also, the principal was assaulted during the incident.
Maybe he should counter-sue.....

Just point of legal order to note:

If the school wished to expel anyone - they would have had to wait what I think is a twenty day period just to be able to do so.

A student shall not be expelled from a school before the passing of 20 school days following the receipt of a notification under this section by an educational welfare officer.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0022/sec0024.html#sec24

So given the lack of time available to them and the circumstances anyway, they opted for a suspension route.

I suspect the pupils frankly was damn lucky maybe?

Zab

Biggins wrote: »

Now unless some here are playing thick, we can take it that other prior to myself have stated or espoused that some (O' look at that - I had the hard neck to say "some" again also) meeting took place.
Amazing that where I state "some" - the blind here somehow can still see "all" !!!

Carry on being pedantic drkpower.

I could quote other posts from you that imply that the school made an attempt to schedule meetings with all the parents but if it wasn't your intention to imply this then why don't you just say that. Yes, it would make your previous posts incorrect, but that's happened anyway.

The fact is that - for the forth time - "Time was clearly a factor here as exams were coming up."

Now, either people here can silly bitch about the exams being too far away or NOW, they were too close!

There were two weeks between the incident and the suspensions and almost three weeks from the suspensions until the Leaving Certificate. You keep saying that time was a factor but have made absolutely no case as to why these meeting couldn't have taken place in the two weeks prior to the suspensions. No matter how many times you quote yourself and use bold, it doesn't make your statements any truer.

Long story short - in order to suspend some due to lets see maybe "Time was clearly a factor here as exams were coming up." - the school did what it did.

Well, my time is definitely a factor, and I'm not seeing the point in this discussion if you're just going to old your hands over your ears and hum to yourself. I do at least note that you've dropped your mocks in May line.

Heroditas

Biggins, my point is that there are a lot of bits and pieces of the story missing. The students acted like ****s. Whether the school followed procedures or not, a lot of the facts have been kept from the press.
I'm in agreement with you

end of the road

bluecode wrote: »

If the school didn't react, next year the class of 2013 will attempt to top it with something even better and so on into the future.

meh, even though the school reacted, same thing will happen next year, school reacting won't stop them, the way of the world now days. agree with you on the pearents though.

Biggins

I could quote other posts from you that imply that the school made an attempt to schedule meetings with all the parents...

Please do so.
Pleas show where I stated to use your words "the school made an attempt to schedule meetings with all the parents".
Please post where I stated this.

Has anyone said when exactly any meetings had taken place for all? Anyone?

Drkpower seems to think and has stated that a lot of some meetings didn't "majority" take place but left one of his previous statements that one (or others?) did!

Be it mocks assessment or other areas of work being done prior to the actual exams, time once again was running out for the school to impose a form of punishment.
This they did. I'm assuming (open to be wrong) they did so within Educational departmental guidelines.
Some parents are not happy their child got disciplined.

Well "Boo-hoo" for them!

Maybe the next time their offspring decided to contemplate breaking rules, they might just remember the past and learn from it.

If a short suspension can do that, its a lesson possibly well metered out and learned!

Biggins

Heroditas wrote: »

Biggins, my point is that there are a lot of bits and pieces of the story missing. The students acted like ****s. Whether the school followed procedures or not, a lot of the facts have been kept from the press.
I'm in agreement with you

I know your in agreement with me.

I too suspect that there is more detail to what happened on the day.
I'm also suspecting that for legal reasons, the school is being cautious (following ongoing or additional legal advice?) legally in releasing such details to the public - and maybe rightly so.

However, if some irate parents are keen to rush to court, we all might find out that their little 'offspring' might be responsible for more!
In a defence put forth, the school will have to further detail such matters, if thats the case.
The pupils involved will be seen in even worse possible light - instead of just of what they had stood previously suspended for.

Frankly, I think maybe most of the Irish people had moved on from the previous events - but now some parents have further created their own mountain out of a molehill!

steddyeddy

Who cares if the school didnt contact the parents. The kids arent missing any classes. Its a non story and the parents are defeating their own claim that their kids are embarrassed by sueing the school and thus bringing further attention to the issue.

end of the road

RMD wrote: »

they had to make an example of them.

their wasting their time.

RMD wrote: »

If the school didn't suspend them the following years would try to top each previous years prank.

and you think because of the suspensions that the following years won't try to top each previous years prank? sorry don't buy it. kids are kids, they will always try to break the rules and push the bounderies, its the way of the world.

Zab

Biggins wrote: »

Please do so.
Pleas show where I stated to use your words "the school made an attempt to schedule meetings with all the parents".
Please post where I stated this.

You can look through your own posts, but I suggest you look up the word "imply" before you do so. The majority of people reading your posts will conclude that you're implying the school attempted to meet the parents but time didn't allow for it, time being such a massive factor in this case and all.

Be it mocks assessment or other areas of work being done prior to the actual exams, time once again was running out for the school to impose a form of punishment.

Again you post this, again. There were two weeks between the incident and the suspensions. This is more than enough time to meet with the parents involved. Instead of taking on that fact you just repeat that time was running out, or time was a factor.

Frankly, I don't give a **** about these kids getting suspended or not, and I don't believe it will have much of an impact on their future. However, I'm honestly surprised at the specific line of reasoning that you're taking, your inability to see how flawed it is, and how you silently drop aspects of your argument when you finally see that it's indefensible (okay, this last one is pretty common on internet forums).

Biggins

end of the road wrote: »

...and you think because of the suspensions that the following years won't try to top each previous years prank? sorry don't buy it. kids are kids, they will always try to break the rules and push the bounderies, its the way of the world.

Kid will be kids - and they will break rules.

...And they should also quickly learn from their actions that sometimes there is associated penalties.

God forbid they might grow up and think they can ignore rules and laws told to them and do what they please!
...If that was the case, they'd all be changing their last name to "Quinn" ?

Biggins

Please do so.
Pleas show where I stated to use your words "the school made an attempt to schedule meetings with all the parents".
Please post where I stated this.

Zab wrote: »

You can look through your own posts...

So you can't then?
Got it!
Thanks.

Frankly, I don't give a **** about these kids getting suspended or not, and I don't believe it will have much of an impact on their future. However, I'm honestly surprised at the specific line of reasoning that you're taking, your inability to see how flawed it is, and how you silently drop aspects of your argument when you finally see that it's indefensible (okay, this last one is pretty common on internet forums).

You think its unreasonable of me to not agree with the parents?
We shall agree to disagree then.

Someone breaks the rules - punishment is metered out - what else can one expect!
Its not rocket science to follow and understand such a process.

Hulk Hands

To be fair, I'm sure the majority of parents think the punishment is dead right, and gave their kids a bollocking etc.

We can all remember the few parents in every year group whose kids could do no wrong in their eyes and were always defending them at Parent/Teacher meetings etc. It's probably just the same few muppets who are threatening to sue here

Biggins

Hulk Hands wrote: »

To be fair, I'm sure the majority of parents think the punishment is dead right, and gave their kids a bollocking etc.

We can all remember the few parents in every year group whose kids could do no wrong in their eyes and were always defending them at Parent/Teacher meetings etc. It's probably just the same few muppets who are threatening to sue here

I have such parents (as in your example above - not necessarily as with the parents of the school) within my own area.

I and the wife have caught their son constantly stealing minor stuff and up to no good.
Yet to them, their child is an angel. He can do no wrong and don't anyone say so!

Some parents are blind idiots! End of story.

Zab

Biggins wrote: »

So you can't then?
Got it!
Thanks.

I'll just quote this one again

drkpower wrote:

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.

This clearly implies that the parents had the option to attend but didn't, how else could they be slower? Let's stop discussing this one, but I do think you should consider the possibility that your words imply things you may not have intended them to.

You think its unreasonable of me to not agree with the parents?

Absolutely not, I said that the lines of "reasoning" I've quoted from you are unreasonable. There are plenty of valid reasons to come up with the same conclusion, and you've posted some of them.

Biggins

*sigh*

Lets be clear here, note the following:

Drkpower stated:

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.

I replied:

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

Now where the fcuk did I say ALL?
PLEASE show us where?

This clearly implies that the parents had the option to attend but didn't..

No - IT DON'T

Let's stop discussing this one,

I will if you stop posting schite that I NEVER said!

...I do think you should consider the possibility that your words imply things you may not have intended them to.

I do think that you should consider your reading things that just isn't bloody there or you haven't bothered to read the previous post to it!

Sierra 117

Zab wrote: »

This clearly implies that the parents had the option to attend but didn't, how else could they be slower?

It doesn't clearly imply that.

Zab

You said that "Aaa... they DID bother - meetings were held for some, those that could possibly attend as soon as possible!". The only way they could hold it for those that could "possibly attend as soon as possible" would be if they attempted to hold a meeting for all of them.

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

I misread this quote though, so I'm wrong there.

steddyeddy

Who cares if they did or didnt. Discipline isnt or shouldnt be a big a problem in a private shcool. A lot of them have waiting lists and can easily tell a desruptive child to get lost. I thought that was one of the benifits of provate school.

Biggins

Zab wrote: »

You said that "Aaa... they DID bother - meetings were held for some, those that could possibly attend as soon as possible!". The only way they could hold it for those that could "possibly attend as soon as possible" would be if they attempted to hold a meeting for all of them.

I did state the above - it appears indeed meets was held for SOME if we are to trust alone Drkpower's very words:

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.

YOU have stated/opinionated

"The only way they could hold it for those that could "possibly attend as soon as possible" would be if they attempted to hold a meeting for all of them."

I have not - and you have NOT shown that I have stated it.

I have NOT stated a meeting was held for ALL of them.
I have not stated "that the parents had the option to attend but didn't."

I wish people would bloody read a thread as its actually typed.

Lets move on!

Miss Lockhart

I have no sympathy for those involved and I think they are making fools of themselves.

The school should have called in the parents (I would say time was the limiting factor here) - but nowhere in the code does it say that the parents' opinions or arguments against a sanction will be taken into account. That decision lies entirely with the school and so I don't believe the lack of parental meetings has any bearing on whether the suspensions would go ahead or not.

The code even has a specific section detailing "end of year behaviour" to highlight that incidents like this will not be tolerated.

Also, as the suspensions were only 2 and a half days, there is no guaranteed right to appeal as the the code specifies this is for lengthy suspensions, which it defines as more than 3 days.

These people should learn their lesson and move on. At most they should write to the BoM to complain about the meetings not taking place and perhaps request an apology for same. The school should consider making such an apology but stand firm on its course of action regarding the actual suspensions while ensuring it follows its code to the letter in future.

All in all it seems like a pathetic exercise in time and money-wasting from a bunch of over-entitled idiots.

Biggins

The relevant section of the Education Act 1998 does NOT state that parents have to be called in before punishment is metered out.

It does say they can be called in later and/or they can come in themselves (I paraphrase) to seek re-dress, etc.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0051/sec0029.html#zza51y1998s29

...And thats the law.

In the case of expelling someone - different rules apply.
A 20 day period is invoked.

As no one was expelled or that process was un-needed, that section fo the law or its use, was/is un-necessary.

ixoy

I do find it a little odd that 113 of 120 pupils would be caught up in something like this. I'd be surprised if more than a few weren't coerced into it.