Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Even More

If a member of staff were ever physically assaulted by a pupil at Chalk High School, then as Head it would be my duty to call the Police and expel the pupil immediately (as per the school contract).

The pupil's name and details of the assault would be published on the school website and circulated to any regional forums in order to cause maximum shame. The local press would be contacted with the story and to hell with any concerns about the school's image. (I know full well that some wretches might regard this as a 'badge of honour', but possible future employers won't). No future member of the family would be accepted into the school.

If the criminal prosecution proved to be unsuccessful then the school would immediately instigate civil proceedings.

The only reason all schools don't do these things already is that the Heads aren't up to it.


Anonymous said...

To get a criminal conviction you have to prove the assault beyond reasonable doubt.

If you fail to do that, and the child's lawyer can then prove on the balance of probabilities that the assault never happened, you can be sued for damages.

Chalk High School would probably have to pay legal fees even if it won the civil case - ruining the school.

You think that education is silly, try law.


Kimpatsu said...

No future member of the family would be accepted into the school.
That's unfair, Frank. Are you prepared to be punished for the behaviour of other people?

Anonymous said...

"That's unfair, Frank."

Life is unfair. And I'm punished for the behaviour of other people every single day. I pay insurance because other people do burglaries. I pay tax to the NHS to keep people alive who are dying because they smoke, drink, eat too much and never exercise. The suspension on my car is weakened by speed bumps placed in the road because other people are too stupid and inconsiderate to stick to the speed limit.

Blacklisting whole families is a sound move.

Pursuing the family of the perp of an assault, however, is not. The only thing you can hope to get out of it is money - if they have any, which if they're going to your school instead of a private one, they obviously haven't.

Hill said...

anon 13.51 Why do you say that families who would send their children to what sounds like a well proposed school would have no money?

Surely there would be a spectrum of wealth ranging from none to a reasonable amount?

Anonymous said...

I have a simple message for all public sector managers; "Grow a pair!"

Anonymous said...

If Chalk High was run like this you have no problems anyway.

1) All houses in the catchment area would go up in price as wealthier "concerned" parents moved in to make sure there darlings got into the school. Due to..

2) The school having better and more motivated staff as they felt they would be supported by the SMT. This would lead to...

3) Better Exam results which mean the school would be in more demand (now return to point 1).

Of course the downside would be because you doing well you budget would be slashed as it would be totally unfair to use the money on children who actually wanted to learn.

“The Students of today will run the country tomorrow and decide your pension! Worried yet?”

Bill said...

Interesting comparison with Mr Chalks take on the "Die Die Die" teacher who battered some brat half to death with a dumbbell.

Double standard.