Boy banned from Wilsden nursery

Cheryl Dibbin and her son Nico Dibbin with the letter from Wilsden Nursery stating that Nico can't attend the nursery for the rest of the term

Cheryl Dibbin and her son Nico Dibbin with the letter from Wilsden Nursery stating that Nico can't attend the nursery for the rest of the term

The letter from Wilsden Nursery

First published in Keighley

A MOTHER has claimed her four-year-old son is being unfairly punished after he was banned from the last week of nursery.

Cheryl Dibbin, from Riddlesden, contacted Ofsted last month after an incident at Wilsden Nursery where her son Nico claims he was grabbed by the wrist when he threw a cup. The complaint triggered an inspection, and a few days after the inspectors visited the school, she received a letter saying Nico’s place was being withdrawn.

It claimed that his family had been discussing the issue in public, and this amounted to a “breach of confidentiality”.

Nico will now miss his last days at the private nursery, including a teddy bear’s picnic and leaving party.

The letter said: “We have been advised by several parents in Wilsden that the complaint you recently raised with us and reported to Ofsted is being discussed by you and grandma openly in public.

"This is a breach of confidentiality as it involves a staff member. We have, therefore, sought advice from Ofsted regarding this matter.

“Following their advice we feel it necessary to withdraw Nico’s place from nursery with immediate effect. It is regrettable that we have had to take this course of action but we have a duty to protect our staff.”

An Ofsted spokesman said: “We do not normally comment on complaints to Ofsted, but we would never tell a nursery to remove a child. That decision would be for the nursery.”

Mrs Dibbin said her mother, Doreen Hinchcliffe, who takes Nico to school, had spoken of the incident in the village, but that calling gossip a breach of confidentiality was going too far. She said: “The whole thing is just bizarre. If the issue they had was with me and my mum then they should have just talked to us, I think this is a drastic measure.”

A spokesman for the nursery said: “The reason the child is no longer in the pre-school is because the family were making defamatory statements about the staff which were unsubstantiated.”

They said that although Ofsted had not advised them to withdraw Nico’s place, they were told they were “well within their rights” to.

Comments (60)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:40am Thu 24 Jul 14

the_watcher86 says...

“The whole thing is just bizarre. If the issue they had was with me and my mum then they should have just talked to us, I think this is a drastic measure.”

Then why didnt you just speak to the school rather than reporting them to Ofsted - maybe some would consider that a 'drastic measure'

If you want to go around reporting nurseries to Ofsted then at least accept the knock on effect it would cause instead of running to KN
“The whole thing is just bizarre. If the issue they had was with me and my mum then they should have just talked to us, I think this is a drastic measure.” Then why didnt you just speak to the school rather than reporting them to Ofsted - maybe some would consider that a 'drastic measure' If you want to go around reporting nurseries to Ofsted then at least accept the knock on effect it would cause instead of running to KN the_watcher86
  • Score: 16

9:44am Thu 24 Jul 14

MarkPullen says...

"calling gossip a breach of confidentiality was going too far."

Maybe gossiping was the bridge too far?
"calling gossip a breach of confidentiality was going too far." Maybe gossiping was the bridge too far? MarkPullen
  • Score: 7

2:56pm Thu 24 Jul 14

whisky1 says...

Not sure why a parent would want its childs photograph splashed across the Local press in such circumstances. A complaint to Offsted ..then gossiping at the schoolgates about it and finally arranging for the whole sorry affair to be printed in the local rag. Priceless.
Not sure why a parent would want its childs photograph splashed across the Local press in such circumstances. A complaint to Offsted ..then gossiping at the schoolgates about it and finally arranging for the whole sorry affair to be printed in the local rag. Priceless. whisky1
  • Score: 13

8:14pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Little Green Man says...

Looks like a nasty little spoiled brat to me.: )
Looks like a nasty little spoiled brat to me.: ) Little Green Man
  • Score: -1

9:21pm Thu 24 Jul 14

jimmy k says...

Little Green Man wrote:
Looks like a nasty little spoiled brat to me.: )
the son doesn't look much better.
[quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: Looks like a nasty little spoiled brat to me.: )[/p][/quote]the son doesn't look much better. jimmy k
  • Score: 9

8:53am Fri 25 Jul 14

mike tiresome says...

So the behavior of her little prince is ok is it. He hurled a cup at someone.
If he could behave there would be no story.
So the behavior of her little prince is ok is it. He hurled a cup at someone. If he could behave there would be no story. mike tiresome
  • Score: 11

3:18pm Fri 25 Jul 14

righttospeak says...

Throwing a cup surely the parents should stamp on this type of behaviour. Its about time nursery & schools stood up to poor behaviour from parents and children - respect is both ways - this lady obviously has none
Throwing a cup surely the parents should stamp on this type of behaviour. Its about time nursery & schools stood up to poor behaviour from parents and children - respect is both ways - this lady obviously has none righttospeak
  • Score: 9

3:20pm Fri 25 Jul 14

MarkPullen says...

righttospeak wrote:
Throwing a cup surely the parents should stamp on this type of behaviour. Its about time nursery & schools stood up to poor behaviour from parents and children - respect is both ways - this lady obviously has none
Though it is the actions of the Grandma that the school refer to.
[quote][p][bold]righttospeak[/bold] wrote: Throwing a cup surely the parents should stamp on this type of behaviour. Its about time nursery & schools stood up to poor behaviour from parents and children - respect is both ways - this lady obviously has none[/p][/quote]Though it is the actions of the Grandma that the school refer to. MarkPullen
  • Score: 5

8:38pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Riddlesden righteous says...

To all the hypocritical people out there that do have young children that play or have never spoken to anyone at the school gate you had totally not understood the article - the little prince was removed for gossip (something totally unheard of) nothing to do with throwing a cup !!
I have never heard of a 4 year old throwing a plastic cup in the air have you ?? Heck little boys will be little boys. I have also never heard of gossip at school gates. What a different world you must all live in !
To all the hypocritical people out there that do have young children that play or have never spoken to anyone at the school gate you had totally not understood the article - the little prince was removed for gossip (something totally unheard of) nothing to do with throwing a cup !! I have never heard of a 4 year old throwing a plastic cup in the air have you ?? Heck little boys will be little boys. I have also never heard of gossip at school gates. What a different world you must all live in ! Riddlesden righteous
  • Score: -5

8:48pm Fri 25 Jul 14

jimmy k says...

Riddlesden righteous wrote:
To all the hypocritical people out there that do have young children that play or have never spoken to anyone at the school gate you had totally not understood the article - the little prince was removed for gossip (something totally unheard of) nothing to do with throwing a cup !!
I have never heard of a 4 year old throwing a plastic cup in the air have you ?? Heck little boys will be little boys. I have also never heard of gossip at school gates. What a different world you must all live in !
because something happens makes it all right then?methinks you know more about this then your letting on nowhere in the article does it say the cup was plastic.riddlesden righteous now where does the family come from?
[quote][p][bold]Riddlesden righteous[/bold] wrote: To all the hypocritical people out there that do have young children that play or have never spoken to anyone at the school gate you had totally not understood the article - the little prince was removed for gossip (something totally unheard of) nothing to do with throwing a cup !! I have never heard of a 4 year old throwing a plastic cup in the air have you ?? Heck little boys will be little boys. I have also never heard of gossip at school gates. What a different world you must all live in ![/p][/quote]because something happens makes it all right then?methinks you know more about this then your letting on nowhere in the article does it say the cup was plastic.riddlesden righteous now where does the family come from? jimmy k
  • Score: 2

9:33pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Riddlesden righteous says...

I can tell you it was a plastic cup that accidentally hit someone - do you think they have pot cups in nurseries that can be hurled !! Where the family lives has very little to do with anyone does it.
I can tell you it was a plastic cup that accidentally hit someone - do you think they have pot cups in nurseries that can be hurled !! Where the family lives has very little to do with anyone does it. Riddlesden righteous
  • Score: -3

10:02pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Kingchaser says...

Punishing the child for the actions of his Grandmother....... seems very petty.
Punishing the child for the actions of his Grandmother....... seems very petty. Kingchaser
  • Score: 4

10:49pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Riddlesden righteous says...

The grandmother didn't gossip ! The letter arrived after Ofsted visited and not the weeks after the incident or alleged gossip
The grandmother didn't gossip ! The letter arrived after Ofsted visited and not the weeks after the incident or alleged gossip Riddlesden righteous
  • Score: -8

8:42am Sat 26 Jul 14

elland road says...

jimmy k wrote:
Riddlesden righteous wrote:
To all the hypocritical people out there that do have young children that play or have never spoken to anyone at the school gate you had totally not understood the article - the little prince was removed for gossip (something totally unheard of) nothing to do with throwing a cup !!
I have never heard of a 4 year old throwing a plastic cup in the air have you ?? Heck little boys will be little boys. I have also never heard of gossip at school gates. What a different world you must all live in !
because something happens makes it all right then?methinks you know more about this then your letting on nowhere in the article does it say the cup was plastic.riddlesden righteous now where does the family come from?
I never realised when you enrol a child for school nursery that the parents grandparents are sworn to contractual secrecy. Also I believe that is what Offsted is there for to raise a issue if you are not happy or concerned about something ie dragged by the arm. The parent is well within there rights to contact Offsted the backlash is the nursery spat there sorry dummy out sulking becase Offsted were informed and no school or nursery wants Offsted visiting. It's clear they banned the child be tit for tat for raising the issue with Offsted not the cup incident so be warned report to Offsted and get looking for another school or nursery for your child especially if he or she attends the nursery mentioned above.
[quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Riddlesden righteous[/bold] wrote: To all the hypocritical people out there that do have young children that play or have never spoken to anyone at the school gate you had totally not understood the article - the little prince was removed for gossip (something totally unheard of) nothing to do with throwing a cup !! I have never heard of a 4 year old throwing a plastic cup in the air have you ?? Heck little boys will be little boys. I have also never heard of gossip at school gates. What a different world you must all live in ![/p][/quote]because something happens makes it all right then?methinks you know more about this then your letting on nowhere in the article does it say the cup was plastic.riddlesden righteous now where does the family come from?[/p][/quote]I never realised when you enrol a child for school nursery that the parents grandparents are sworn to contractual secrecy. Also I believe that is what Offsted is there for to raise a issue if you are not happy or concerned about something ie dragged by the arm. The parent is well within there rights to contact Offsted the backlash is the nursery spat there sorry dummy out sulking becase Offsted were informed and no school or nursery wants Offsted visiting. It's clear they banned the child be tit for tat for raising the issue with Offsted not the cup incident so be warned report to Offsted and get looking for another school or nursery for your child especially if he or she attends the nursery mentioned above. elland road
  • Score: 1

6:08pm Sat 26 Jul 14

elland road says...

Little Green Man wrote:
Looks like a nasty little spoiled brat to me.: )
Mmmmmm I wonder if this little green man works at the nursery??
[quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: Looks like a nasty little spoiled brat to me.: )[/p][/quote]Mmmmmm I wonder if this little green man works at the nursery?? elland road
  • Score: -4

9:44pm Sat 26 Jul 14

jimmy k says...

elland road wrote:
Little Green Man wrote:
Looks like a nasty little spoiled brat to me.: )
Mmmmmm I wonder if this little green man works at the nursery??
wonder if this ellend road has initials of ds?
[quote][p][bold]elland road[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: Looks like a nasty little spoiled brat to me.: )[/p][/quote]Mmmmmm I wonder if this little green man works at the nursery??[/p][/quote]wonder if this ellend road has initials of ds? jimmy k
  • Score: 2

10:29pm Sat 26 Jul 14

Riddlesden righteous says...

Just amazes me what small minded people on here would call a small child names !! You don't know the whole story, the circumstances or the mother or child. People that want to call children names really should not comment !!
Just amazes me what small minded people on here would call a small child names !! You don't know the whole story, the circumstances or the mother or child. People that want to call children names really should not comment !! Riddlesden righteous
  • Score: -1

11:05pm Sat 26 Jul 14

elland road says...

jimmy k wrote:
elland road wrote:
Little Green Man wrote:
Looks like a nasty little spoiled brat to me.: )
Mmmmmm I wonder if this little green man works at the nursery??
wonder if this ellend road has initials of ds?
Please elaborate
[quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elland road[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: Looks like a nasty little spoiled brat to me.: )[/p][/quote]Mmmmmm I wonder if this little green man works at the nursery??[/p][/quote]wonder if this ellend road has initials of ds?[/p][/quote]Please elaborate elland road
  • Score: 0

11:59pm Sat 26 Jul 14

jampot2 says...

This kind of nonsense could all be avoided if anyone, anywhere these days had a little common sense.
1. It is quite normal for a child to have tantrums when it doesn't get its own way. A child needs to learn that it will not always get its own way - none of us do in later life. That is the responsibility of the parents IN COOPERATION WITH those who are responsible for its education.
2. A child having a tantrum may need to be restrained to prevent it from inflicting damage to property or to other children/people. Clearly, that should not give the staff the right to use tear gas or sit on the child, but REASONABLE force may be necessary just to demonstrate to the child that its behaviour is unacceptable at that point in time. Clenching a child's wrist appears to be REASONABLE force. It should not automatically lead to a needless referral to a higher authority. That is a waste of time and resources for all concerned (but typical for witless, modern citizen in search of a quick buck or exposure for his/her appalling treatment).
3. The involvement of Ofsted in a fairly mundane incident is unwarranted. It leads to tension, stress and extra work for everybody in the educational establishment because they are in fear of their jobs in that moment and know they can be criticised for the slightest oversight. Ofsted's work costs time and further money - bearing in mind the original incident was quite 'normal' but now you have burocrats set into action and staff fearing for their livelihoods.
4. It is possible that the staff member's action were inappropriate and did not fit the crime. However, they are just human beings and can be spoken to directly if one disagrees with their methods.
5. I can entirely understand the nursery not wanting to take the risk of taking on a customer liable to overreact to the slightest attempt to instil a sense of discipline in a child. If it's only for a week or so until the summer holidays, after which the child is due to go to school, then it's no great hardship and reflects the inconvenience caused to the nursery by the unnecessary stink being kicked up.
Confidentiality is something modern institutions have to take very seriously. Parents expect this where their children are concerned, so it's not too unreasonable to expect them not to go off bad-mouthing members of staff about their own experiences.
Ultimately, it appears that the nursery has had to deal with a crappy situation that should have been a storm in a teacup. People on here appear to have made their own ideas up about the situation, the child and its family.
You can only hope that justice is done somewhere along the line - maybe that the child and its family are only welcomed by educational institutions happy to embrace such behaviour and such reactions.
Or perhaps there's nothing at all to be learned from this story?
This kind of nonsense could all be avoided if anyone, anywhere these days had a little common sense. 1. It is quite normal for a child to have tantrums when it doesn't get its own way. A child needs to learn that it will not always get its own way - none of us do in later life. That is the responsibility of the parents IN COOPERATION WITH those who are responsible for its education. 2. A child having a tantrum may need to be restrained to prevent it from inflicting damage to property or to other children/people. Clearly, that should not give the staff the right to use tear gas or sit on the child, but REASONABLE force may be necessary just to demonstrate to the child that its behaviour is unacceptable at that point in time. Clenching a child's wrist appears to be REASONABLE force. It should not automatically lead to a needless referral to a higher authority. That is a waste of time and resources for all concerned (but typical for witless, modern citizen in search of a quick buck or exposure for his/her appalling treatment). 3. The involvement of Ofsted in a fairly mundane incident is unwarranted. It leads to tension, stress and extra work for everybody in the educational establishment because they are in fear of their jobs in that moment and know they can be criticised for the slightest oversight. Ofsted's work costs time and further money - bearing in mind the original incident was quite 'normal' but now you have burocrats set into action and staff fearing for their livelihoods. 4. It is possible that the staff member's action were inappropriate and did not fit the crime. However, they are just human beings and can be spoken to directly if one disagrees with their methods. 5. I can entirely understand the nursery not wanting to take the risk of taking on a customer liable to overreact to the slightest attempt to instil a sense of discipline in a child. If it's only for a week or so until the summer holidays, after which the child is due to go to school, then it's no great hardship and reflects the inconvenience caused to the nursery by the unnecessary stink being kicked up. Confidentiality is something modern institutions have to take very seriously. Parents expect this where their children are concerned, so it's not too unreasonable to expect them not to go off bad-mouthing members of staff about their own experiences. Ultimately, it appears that the nursery has had to deal with a crappy situation that should have been a storm in a teacup. People on here appear to have made their own ideas up about the situation, the child and its family. You can only hope that justice is done somewhere along the line - maybe that the child and its family are only welcomed by educational institutions happy to embrace such behaviour and such reactions. Or perhaps there's nothing at all to be learned from this story? jampot2
  • Score: 14

9:44am Sun 27 Jul 14

lol@u says...

Riddlesden righteous wrote:
Just amazes me what small minded people on here would call a small child names !! You don't know the whole story, the circumstances or the mother or child. People that want to call children names really should not comment !!
we can only go by whats written in the article, if the mother didn't want judging, she shouldn't have put it in the arena of the general public
[quote][p][bold]Riddlesden righteous[/bold] wrote: Just amazes me what small minded people on here would call a small child names !! You don't know the whole story, the circumstances or the mother or child. People that want to call children names really should not comment !![/p][/quote]we can only go by whats written in the article, if the mother didn't want judging, she shouldn't have put it in the arena of the general public lol@u
  • Score: 3

11:19am Sun 27 Jul 14

Riddlesden righteous says...

The final facts - choose to believe or make your own minds up !

A 4 year old child accidentally throws a small plastic cup whilst playing with water.

The child is taken by the wrist ( says dragged) but can not ever be proven one way or another.

The child is taken to a timeout for 5 minutes, policy of 1 minute for each year of life - 4 minutes. Timeout policy is used in a nursery setting for extreme behaviour not an accident by throwing a cup in the air.

The next step if you are concerned about the incident is to speak with the nursery and hopefully resolve it, if you get no joy and nobody knows the content of the nursery conversation you are quite within your rights to discuss with Ofsted.

Ofsted make the decision to visit or not, the parent does not have this control. On this occasion Ofsted deemed in necessary to visit - have you all seen previous Ofsted reports, do you know about previous issues - NO

The parent has no idea of anything at this point, they are arrive home from work to find a letter has been sent weeks after the incident but just after Ofsteds visit to say the child can't return the next day or the last week .

The 4 year old boy has gone there for over 2 years, made friends and was due at a leavers party .

The point if the article is to raise awareness, we are supposed to embrace whistleblowing and encourage people to raise concerns.

The letter states due to village gossip, what has this to do with a small child, you will never stop a couple of parents chatting, the nursery has caused itself more gossip with a village asking a grandmother who has lived there over 40 years why her grandson is no longer there and with her in and around the village.

As parents if you were given less than 12 hours notice for something that was a four year old purely playing.

The nursery sent the letter just because Ofsted visited and is not related to any incident .

If you choose to work in a field where there is legislation and you are answerable then don't take offence to an inspection - its comes with the role
The final facts - choose to believe or make your own minds up ! A 4 year old child accidentally throws a small plastic cup whilst playing with water. The child is taken by the wrist ( says dragged) but can not ever be proven one way or another. The child is taken to a timeout for 5 minutes, policy of 1 minute for each year of life - 4 minutes. Timeout policy is used in a nursery setting for extreme behaviour not an accident by throwing a cup in the air. The next step if you are concerned about the incident is to speak with the nursery and hopefully resolve it, if you get no joy and nobody knows the content of the nursery conversation you are quite within your rights to discuss with Ofsted. Ofsted make the decision to visit or not, the parent does not have this control. On this occasion Ofsted deemed in necessary to visit - have you all seen previous Ofsted reports, do you know about previous issues - NO The parent has no idea of anything at this point, they are arrive home from work to find a letter has been sent weeks after the incident but just after Ofsteds visit to say the child can't return the next day or the last week . The 4 year old boy has gone there for over 2 years, made friends and was due at a leavers party . The point if the article is to raise awareness, we are supposed to embrace whistleblowing and encourage people to raise concerns. The letter states due to village gossip, what has this to do with a small child, you will never stop a couple of parents chatting, the nursery has caused itself more gossip with a village asking a grandmother who has lived there over 40 years why her grandson is no longer there and with her in and around the village. As parents if you were given less than 12 hours notice for something that was a four year old purely playing. The nursery sent the letter just because Ofsted visited and is not related to any incident . If you choose to work in a field where there is legislation and you are answerable then don't take offence to an inspection - its comes with the role Riddlesden righteous
  • Score: -4

2:30pm Sun 27 Jul 14

Mixter says...

What 'whistleblowing' has gone on? Ofsted being told a kid has been held by the wrist for throwing a cup? As this is all i can see i the story. An OTT action if ever there was one?

To do right, (and theres a chance this may stray out of PC), had the kid had its back-side slapped at the same time as having its wrist held (described from personal memory), it may not be so quick to throw any more cups.

Sadly, in todays time-honoured fashion, instead of the lad getting a smack off his mam for being naughty, he is the subject of some low-level 'investigation' and thrown out of school because he is seen as some kind of 'victim' instead.

The list of kids that can do no wrong just gets longer.
What 'whistleblowing' has gone on? Ofsted being told a kid has been held by the wrist for throwing a cup? As this is all i can see i the story. An OTT action if ever there was one? To do right, (and theres a chance this may stray out of PC), had the kid had its back-side slapped at the same time as having its wrist held (described from personal memory), it may not be so quick to throw any more cups. Sadly, in todays time-honoured fashion, instead of the lad getting a smack off his mam for being naughty, he is the subject of some low-level 'investigation' and thrown out of school because he is seen as some kind of 'victim' instead. The list of kids that can do no wrong just gets longer. Mixter
  • Score: 3

3:33pm Sun 27 Jul 14

Riddlesden righteous says...

If I must point out yet again - cup thrown, accidentally thrown does not give any one the right to be held by a wrist and possibly dragged !! Do you punish nursery children to that extent - I like to think not !
I am a firm believer in discipline but not rude, mismanaged nurseries that throw a child out for the alleged gossip in a village
If I must point out yet again - cup thrown, accidentally thrown does not give any one the right to be held by a wrist and possibly dragged !! Do you punish nursery children to that extent - I like to think not ! I am a firm believer in discipline but not rude, mismanaged nurseries that throw a child out for the alleged gossip in a village Riddlesden righteous
  • Score: -9

8:41pm Sun 27 Jul 14

jimmy k says...

how do you know all this rr?were you in the room at the time?you say it's the final facts but if you weren't there how can you say they were?the trouble with this worlds is a lot of parents think there little angels can do no wrong.
how do you know all this rr?were you in the room at the time?you say it's the final facts but if you weren't there how can you say they were?the trouble with this worlds is a lot of parents think there little angels can do no wrong. jimmy k
  • Score: -2

8:48pm Sun 27 Jul 14

Riddlesden righteous says...

All little angels can do wrong - you were possibly one yourself . No I wasn't in the room were you ? But I know I have more evidence and facts than you do !
All little angels can do wrong - you were possibly one yourself . No I wasn't in the room were you ? But I know I have more evidence and facts than you do ! Riddlesden righteous
  • Score: -6

8:52pm Sun 27 Jul 14

jimmy k says...

i never said i was in the room i'm only quoting you when you said these were the final facts.if you weren't in the room i can't see how you can say that.unless they are the version of events you want to believe.
i never said i was in the room i'm only quoting you when you said these were the final facts.if you weren't in the room i can't see how you can say that.unless they are the version of events you want to believe. jimmy k
  • Score: 4

8:53pm Sun 27 Jul 14

jimmy k says...

one more thought why does anybody including the kn and the parents consider this to be news?
one more thought why does anybody including the kn and the parents consider this to be news? jimmy k
  • Score: 1

9:00pm Sun 27 Jul 14

Riddlesden righteous says...

Do you not think working parents should be given notice if a nursery decides to take such inappropriate actions ? How do working parents make childcare arrangements at night for the following morning ? Wouldn't a call to parents explaining alleged gossip be more appropriate then a letter posting ? If you pay for a service aren't you given notice ? Would you like one the services you pay for terminating without notice with immediate effect ?
I think not
Do you not think working parents should be given notice if a nursery decides to take such inappropriate actions ? How do working parents make childcare arrangements at night for the following morning ? Wouldn't a call to parents explaining alleged gossip be more appropriate then a letter posting ? If you pay for a service aren't you given notice ? Would you like one the services you pay for terminating without notice with immediate effect ? I think not Riddlesden righteous
  • Score: -4

9:03pm Sun 27 Jul 14

Riddlesden righteous says...

One more point - what is news worthy ? I believe unfair treatment, inappropriate action and thoughtlessness regard to consequences is !
One more point - what is news worthy ? I believe unfair treatment, inappropriate action and thoughtlessness regard to consequences is ! Riddlesden righteous
  • Score: -1

9:12pm Sun 27 Jul 14

jimmy k says...

god your right rr,i was in a pub the other day and asked for my pint topping up they refused and said if i don't like it i can go elsewhere,this was unfair to me an inappropriate response and had no thought whatsoever, wheres the kn editors number?
god your right rr,i was in a pub the other day and asked for my pint topping up they refused and said if i don't like it i can go elsewhere,this was unfair to me an inappropriate response and had no thought whatsoever, wheres the kn editors number? jimmy k
  • Score: 4

9:16pm Sun 27 Jul 14

Riddlesden righteous says...

Maybe you should have offered to pay for it !! Just maybe if you had been grabbed by the wrist you might have !! Give them a ring I'm sure you will have plenty of interesting stories to share
Maybe you should have offered to pay for it !! Just maybe if you had been grabbed by the wrist you might have !! Give them a ring I'm sure you will have plenty of interesting stories to share Riddlesden righteous
  • Score: 0

9:19pm Sun 27 Jul 14

jimmy k says...

once again rr how do you know he was grabbed by the wrist if you weren't in the room?
once again rr how do you know he was grabbed by the wrist if you weren't in the room? jimmy k
  • Score: 4

9:25pm Sun 27 Jul 14

MarkPullen says...

Riddlesden righteous wrote:
All little angels can do wrong - you were possibly one yourself . No I wasn't in the room were you ? But I know I have more evidence and facts than you do !
How have you more evidence?
[quote][p][bold]Riddlesden righteous[/bold] wrote: All little angels can do wrong - you were possibly one yourself . No I wasn't in the room were you ? But I know I have more evidence and facts than you do ![/p][/quote]How have you more evidence? MarkPullen
  • Score: 4

9:26pm Sun 27 Jul 14

Riddlesden righteous says...

Not that this has to be justified to you but for clarification - he told me, I asked very nicely for it to be looked in to, I went to see them, they had a report which said he was held by the wrist ! This is a 4 year old in a nursery playing with a plastic cup and water, I was told by them it was possibly an accident
Not that this has to be justified to you but for clarification - he told me, I asked very nicely for it to be looked in to, I went to see them, they had a report which said he was held by the wrist ! This is a 4 year old in a nursery playing with a plastic cup and water, I was told by them it was possibly an accident Riddlesden righteous
  • Score: -5

9:29pm Sun 27 Jul 14

MarkPullen says...

Riddlesden righteous wrote:
Not that this has to be justified to you but for clarification - he told me, I asked very nicely for it to be looked in to, I went to see them, they had a report which said he was held by the wrist ! This is a 4 year old in a nursery playing with a plastic cup and water, I was told by them it was possibly an accident
In what capacity did you access the report?
[quote][p][bold]Riddlesden righteous[/bold] wrote: Not that this has to be justified to you but for clarification - he told me, I asked very nicely for it to be looked in to, I went to see them, they had a report which said he was held by the wrist ! This is a 4 year old in a nursery playing with a plastic cup and water, I was told by them it was possibly an accident[/p][/quote]In what capacity did you access the report? MarkPullen
  • Score: 4

9:30pm Sun 27 Jul 14

Riddlesden righteous says...

Told he throw it accidentally - he was punished with a timeout and made to apologise 3 times, if you get no satisfaction from the nursery then you ring Ofsted . I WAS in the room when I tried to sort it amicably - I did not expect a letter 5 weeks later out of the blue - end of
Told he throw it accidentally - he was punished with a timeout and made to apologise 3 times, if you get no satisfaction from the nursery then you ring Ofsted . I WAS in the room when I tried to sort it amicably - I did not expect a letter 5 weeks later out of the blue - end of Riddlesden righteous
  • Score: -5

9:33pm Sun 27 Jul 14

Riddlesden righteous says...

I don't need to provide you with anymore details but I don't make a habit of reporting things unless I believe it is necessary . Do you have a small child that gets up the next day asking why he is not going, why can't he go to a leavers party and see his friends.
I don't need to provide you with anymore details but I don't make a habit of reporting things unless I believe it is necessary . Do you have a small child that gets up the next day asking why he is not going, why can't he go to a leavers party and see his friends. Riddlesden righteous
  • Score: -5

9:34pm Sun 27 Jul 14

MarkPullen says...

Riddlesden righteous wrote:
Told he throw it accidentally - he was punished with a timeout and made to apologise 3 times, if you get no satisfaction from the nursery then you ring Ofsted . I WAS in the room when I tried to sort it amicably - I did not expect a letter 5 weeks later out of the blue - end of
So you are the parent - it would possibly have been wiser to declare this earlier in the thread to allow clarity.
[quote][p][bold]Riddlesden righteous[/bold] wrote: Told he throw it accidentally - he was punished with a timeout and made to apologise 3 times, if you get no satisfaction from the nursery then you ring Ofsted . I WAS in the room when I tried to sort it amicably - I did not expect a letter 5 weeks later out of the blue - end of[/p][/quote]So you are the parent - it would possibly have been wiser to declare this earlier in the thread to allow clarity. MarkPullen
  • Score: 6

9:35pm Sun 27 Jul 14

jimmy k says...

im sorry but if you take a story to the papers the engage on an open forum then if challenged you should justify yourself otherwise people will make up their own minds.
im sorry but if you take a story to the papers the engage on an open forum then if challenged you should justify yourself otherwise people will make up their own minds. jimmy k
  • Score: 5

9:37pm Sun 27 Jul 14

Riddlesden righteous says...

They can !!
They can !! Riddlesden righteous
  • Score: -4

11:48pm Sun 27 Jul 14

jampot2 says...

Well I'm still tending to think that it's the initial over-reaction that led to the exclusion and that it's a non event from the start, blown up out of all proportion. With all due respect, the only people who were there at the time were the staff member(s), other children and Nico himself. So we can only go on the information available to us.
Unfortunately, Riddlesden Righteous loses some credibility with me by saying Nico 'accidentally threw' a cup. Throwing is quite a deliberate act, knocking over is something you tend to do by accident.
I quite agree that punishment of four year-olds should not be THAT draconian - by and large children only want to test things at that age, so there's usually an innocent reason to their behaviour. Equally, a child needs to understand when it has done wrong, and if saying "You're being a very naughty boy at the moment" is not taken seriously, it can be necessary to seek some other form of more obvious or effective sanction.
As the parent, you should also take an interest in showing the child when its behaviour is unacceptable - you should apply broadly the same rules as your partner and the nursery/school your child attends for best effect.
However, if you tell your child it has a right to do this, that and the other: to inform higher authorities and the press when things don't go its way, then don't be surprised if your child grows up to become 'a bit of a handful'. And don't be too surprised if educational institutions become wary of working with you if seek to undermine their authority/respect and work.

Ultimately previous generations of children survived being slapped, caned, hungry, starving, abused, living in fear etc. and went on to try to secure a better future for their own children. Children elsewhere in this world are used to make shoes, go down mines, fight wars, be used as human shields, etc. etc. Those kids would probably kill to be merely held by the hand or put to one side to cool down. People seldom get to read/hear their stories.
Well I'm still tending to think that it's the initial over-reaction that led to the exclusion and that it's a non event from the start, blown up out of all proportion. With all due respect, the only people who were there at the time were the staff member(s), other children and Nico himself. So we can only go on the information available to us. Unfortunately, Riddlesden Righteous loses some credibility with me by saying Nico 'accidentally threw' a cup. Throwing is quite a deliberate act, knocking over is something you tend to do by accident. I quite agree that punishment of four year-olds should not be THAT draconian - by and large children only want to test things at that age, so there's usually an innocent reason to their behaviour. Equally, a child needs to understand when it has done wrong, and if saying "You're being a very naughty boy at the moment" is not taken seriously, it can be necessary to seek some other form of more obvious or effective sanction. As the parent, you should also take an interest in showing the child when its behaviour is unacceptable - you should apply broadly the same rules as your partner and the nursery/school your child attends for best effect. However, if you tell your child it has a right to do this, that and the other: to inform higher authorities and the press when things don't go its way, then don't be surprised if your child grows up to become 'a bit of a handful'. And don't be too surprised if educational institutions become wary of working with you if seek to undermine their authority/respect and work. Ultimately previous generations of children survived being slapped, caned, hungry, starving, abused, living in fear etc. and went on to try to secure a better future for their own children. Children elsewhere in this world are used to make shoes, go down mines, fight wars, be used as human shields, etc. etc. Those kids would probably kill to be merely held by the hand or put to one side to cool down. People seldom get to read/hear their stories. jampot2
  • Score: 4

11:54pm Sun 27 Jul 14

Kingchaser says...

I would say that this child has been punished. Not for the bad behaviour of throwing a plastic cup-which any child can do. Even my little angels did things wrong before my wife and I (along with members of our wider family, and their teachers) had a chance to correct them. This child has been punished because it's wider family chose to involve Ofsted and inform the local press. For me, this is not a debate about whether Ofsted should have been involved, or the press, or even whether the child's parents/guardians should be entering into a debate on these pages.....

This is a debate about whether a small child should have been excluded from the school for throwing a plastic cup ..... And shouldn't the school have to go through a rigorous process where people are allowed to put forward their view before extreme measures are invoked like exclusion?

The management of the school are in the wrong by not going through due process and hiding behind non-existent staff welfare rules and the loser is a small child who has had his childhood tarnished for what is, when alls said and done, something that the parent of any young child has had to deal with.
I would say that this child has been punished. Not for the bad behaviour of throwing a plastic cup-which any child can do. Even my little angels did things wrong before my wife and I (along with members of our wider family, and their teachers) had a chance to correct them. This child has been punished because it's wider family chose to involve Ofsted and inform the local press. For me, this is not a debate about whether Ofsted should have been involved, or the press, or even whether the child's parents/guardians should be entering into a debate on these pages..... This is a debate about whether a small child should have been excluded from the school for throwing a plastic cup ..... And shouldn't the school have to go through a rigorous process where people are allowed to put forward their view before extreme measures are invoked like exclusion? The management of the school are in the wrong by not going through due process and hiding behind non-existent staff welfare rules and the loser is a small child who has had his childhood tarnished for what is, when alls said and done, something that the parent of any young child has had to deal with. Kingchaser
  • Score: 2

12:12am Mon 28 Jul 14

jampot2 says...

You're right to say that the punishment doesn't fit the original 'crime' in this case, Kingfisher. But it was the parents' choice to involve Ofsted and make a very big deal out of the original issue.
If the exclusion is merely for a week, it shouldn't be that big a deal though. It might inconvenience the parents to have to look after the child while he can't go to nursery. But the nursery and Ofsted have also been inconvenienced.
Ultimately, the child may lose out by not being able to attend a leaving do, but it's not the end of the world. And 'the little man' losing out seems to be symptomatic of the world today's political correctness, self-centredness and instrusive governance.
You're right to say that the punishment doesn't fit the original 'crime' in this case, Kingfisher. But it was the parents' choice to involve Ofsted and make a very big deal out of the original issue. If the exclusion is merely for a week, it shouldn't be that big a deal though. It might inconvenience the parents to have to look after the child while he can't go to nursery. But the nursery and Ofsted have also been inconvenienced. Ultimately, the child may lose out by not being able to attend a leaving do, but it's not the end of the world. And 'the little man' losing out seems to be symptomatic of the world today's political correctness, self-centredness and instrusive governance. jampot2
  • Score: 6

7:01am Mon 28 Jul 14

Little Green Man says...

Riddlesden righteous wrote:
Just amazes me what small minded people on here would call a small child names !! You don't know the whole story, the circumstances or the mother or child. People that want to call children names really should not comment !!
If you're referring to my comment I didn't call any child names, I gave my opinion on the photograph - if you think that is name calling then my opinion was probably correct. I might be wrong but the actions of the nursery seem way over the top for a single incident - the obvious conclusion from that is that this isn't the first time this child has caused problems...
[quote][p][bold]Riddlesden righteous[/bold] wrote: Just amazes me what small minded people on here would call a small child names !! You don't know the whole story, the circumstances or the mother or child. People that want to call children names really should not comment !![/p][/quote]If you're referring to my comment I didn't call any child names, I gave my opinion on the photograph - if you think that is name calling then my opinion was probably correct. I might be wrong but the actions of the nursery seem way over the top for a single incident - the obvious conclusion from that is that this isn't the first time this child has caused problems... Little Green Man
  • Score: 2

7:18am Mon 28 Jul 14

Riddlesden righteous says...

To defend my actions it is a big deal a 4 year old not attending is final week and the party, a child that has to walked around a different route in a village to avoid seeing his friends. A 4 year old is just learning about their actions and consequences but this story is about a child being excluded due to a bit of alleged gossip in a village . If the exclusion was due to children throwing things in the air a nursery would be empty. A nursery has a right to terminate a place but surely a phone call or notice would be more appropriate, but would are we excluding for ? Gossip ? The point is all nurseries will state that if you are not happy about something you are within your rights to go to Ofsted, it does not state if you do your child will be excluded ! Please remember there is always a bigger picture and are all nursery staff too angels !!
To defend my actions it is a big deal a 4 year old not attending is final week and the party, a child that has to walked around a different route in a village to avoid seeing his friends. A 4 year old is just learning about their actions and consequences but this story is about a child being excluded due to a bit of alleged gossip in a village . If the exclusion was due to children throwing things in the air a nursery would be empty. A nursery has a right to terminate a place but surely a phone call or notice would be more appropriate, but would are we excluding for ? Gossip ? The point is all nurseries will state that if you are not happy about something you are within your rights to go to Ofsted, it does not state if you do your child will be excluded ! Please remember there is always a bigger picture and are all nursery staff too angels !! Riddlesden righteous
  • Score: -5

8:25am Mon 28 Jul 14

MarkPullen says...

Riddlesden righteous wrote:
To defend my actions it is a big deal a 4 year old not attending is final week and the party, a child that has to walked around a different route in a village to avoid seeing his friends. A 4 year old is just learning about their actions and consequences but this story is about a child being excluded due to a bit of alleged gossip in a village . If the exclusion was due to children throwing things in the air a nursery would be empty. A nursery has a right to terminate a place but surely a phone call or notice would be more appropriate, but would are we excluding for ? Gossip ? The point is all nurseries will state that if you are not happy about something you are within your rights to go to Ofsted, it does not state if you do your child will be excluded ! Please remember there is always a bigger picture and are all nursery staff too angels !!
So the gossip element is purely "alleged"?

Whilst I agree that it is sad that any child who misses a social aspect of the nursery calendar I also have confidence that he will not recall this incident in future years. Just as many parents are prepared to take their children away on family holidays whilst the nursery/school is still open means that a child misses contact with the curriculum and classmates.

I fully accept that all parents should, and do, have the right to escalate matters to the local authority and OFSTED where necessary - the question is whether parents in a similar situation are prepared to exhaust all other avenues prior to taking this action?

I'm pretty sure, from experience, that playground chit-chat and the village grapevine are dangerous environments - conversations don't stop in that location and are often "modified" to the extent that the original message is lost.
[quote][p][bold]Riddlesden righteous[/bold] wrote: To defend my actions it is a big deal a 4 year old not attending is final week and the party, a child that has to walked around a different route in a village to avoid seeing his friends. A 4 year old is just learning about their actions and consequences but this story is about a child being excluded due to a bit of alleged gossip in a village . If the exclusion was due to children throwing things in the air a nursery would be empty. A nursery has a right to terminate a place but surely a phone call or notice would be more appropriate, but would are we excluding for ? Gossip ? The point is all nurseries will state that if you are not happy about something you are within your rights to go to Ofsted, it does not state if you do your child will be excluded ! Please remember there is always a bigger picture and are all nursery staff too angels !![/p][/quote]So the gossip element is purely "alleged"? Whilst I agree that it is sad that any child who misses a social aspect of the nursery calendar I also have confidence that he will not recall this incident in future years. Just as many parents are prepared to take their children away on family holidays whilst the nursery/school is still open means that a child misses contact with the curriculum and classmates. I fully accept that all parents should, and do, have the right to escalate matters to the local authority and OFSTED where necessary - the question is whether parents in a similar situation are prepared to exhaust all other avenues prior to taking this action? I'm pretty sure, from experience, that playground chit-chat and the village grapevine are dangerous environments - conversations don't stop in that location and are often "modified" to the extent that the original message is lost. MarkPullen
  • Score: 5

8:59am Mon 28 Jul 14

whisky1 says...

RR I think its time to move on don't you? ..just a tad undignified arguing the toss on a local papers message board having already held yourself and your child up for public ridicule? I am sure the lad has forgotten all about it by now. I wager the Nursery staff are now on a well deserved holiday and not remotely interested in what happened last term although no doubt they are happy to have seen the back of you.
RR I think its time to move on don't you? ..just a tad undignified arguing the toss on a local papers message board having already held yourself and your child up for public ridicule? I am sure the lad has forgotten all about it by now. I wager the Nursery staff are now on a well deserved holiday and not remotely interested in what happened last term although no doubt they are happy to have seen the back of you. whisky1
  • Score: 7

9:02am Mon 28 Jul 14

Riddlesden righteous says...

I do not object to a nice mix of opinions subject closed for me
I do not object to a nice mix of opinions subject closed for me Riddlesden righteous
  • Score: -3

9:18am Mon 28 Jul 14

MarkPullen says...

Obviously the true issue here is whether it is appropriate to use physical force on a child.

I was schooled during the 70s / 80s and this was a period where physical punishment was still accepted .... though society was starting to question if it was appropriate.

There are occasions where it is necessary to raise your voice or restrict a child - including for their own safety.

A parent is certainly within their rights to question with the education provider - via the staff / manager / owner - if any actions taken were appropriate and measured. If the response is not satisfactory then this can be escalated.

I would hope that progressing any "complaint" to OFSTED is a last resort as the implications on any provider - whether outstanding or not - is onerous and involves administration.

In addition, I would assume that involving OFSTED is only necessary if parents/guardians felt that the provider did not respond sufficiently well in the first place.

The indications are that the parent, in this story, was not satisfied with the response from the provider but whilst OFSTED visited the nursery we haven't been advised of the outcome and whether the family are pursuing the matter further.

Any relationship between a family and a childcare provider relies on mutual trust and respect - in this case I see that this has fallen down and understand that it would be difficult to continue under the circumstances.
Obviously the true issue here is whether it is appropriate to use physical force on a child. I was schooled during the 70s / 80s and this was a period where physical punishment was still accepted .... though society was starting to question if it was appropriate. There are occasions where it is necessary to raise your voice or restrict a child - including for their own safety. A parent is certainly within their rights to question with the education provider - via the staff / manager / owner - if any actions taken were appropriate and measured. If the response is not satisfactory then this can be escalated. I would hope that progressing any "complaint" to OFSTED is a last resort as the implications on any provider - whether outstanding or not - is onerous and involves administration. In addition, I would assume that involving OFSTED is only necessary if parents/guardians felt that the provider did not respond sufficiently well in the first place. The indications are that the parent, in this story, was not satisfied with the response from the provider but whilst OFSTED visited the nursery we haven't been advised of the outcome and whether the family are pursuing the matter further. Any relationship between a family and a childcare provider relies on mutual trust and respect - in this case I see that this has fallen down and understand that it would be difficult to continue under the circumstances. MarkPullen
  • Score: 4

9:18am Mon 28 Jul 14

whisky1 says...

Riddlesden righteous wrote:
I do not object to a nice mix of opinions subject closed for me
The pennies dropped thank Christ for that
[quote][p][bold]Riddlesden righteous[/bold] wrote: I do not object to a nice mix of opinions subject closed for me[/p][/quote]The pennies dropped thank Christ for that whisky1
  • Score: 5

10:33am Mon 28 Jul 14

the_watcher86 says...

Fianlly the mother realises that it is most likely her actions of 'chinese whispers' in the village that most likely caused the 'stress' at the school.

It is easy to conclude here that should the parent have raised the concern directly with the school and not gone running to Ofsted the child would probably still be going to
the school leaving party and would not be dismissed.

The reason for dismissal are well within the school rights especially when the family are running their mouths off saying their child has been 'hit' or'abused' at school
by the teacher. Cant the mother see the teacher was only trying to control 'your' child and probably took the nesecarry action at the time in order to deal with the misbehaviour.
I'm pretty sure the teacher doesnt go dragging the children around by their arms on a normal day or for minor misbehaviour overwise these
complaints would be much more prevelant.
This was an incident to be discussed with the head teacher and that is all, by taking it further the school probably had policies to remove the child whilst investigaged.
Fianlly the mother realises that it is most likely her actions of 'chinese whispers' in the village that most likely caused the 'stress' at the school. It is easy to conclude here that should the parent have raised the concern directly with the school and not gone running to Ofsted the child would probably still be going to the school leaving party and would not be dismissed. The reason for dismissal are well within the school rights especially when the family are running their mouths off saying their child has been 'hit' or'abused' at school by the teacher. Cant the mother see the teacher was only trying to control 'your' child and probably took the nesecarry action at the time in order to deal with the misbehaviour. I'm pretty sure the teacher doesnt go dragging the children around by their arms on a normal day or for minor misbehaviour overwise these complaints would be much more prevelant. This was an incident to be discussed with the head teacher and that is all, by taking it further the school probably had policies to remove the child whilst investigaged. the_watcher86
  • Score: 4

11:08am Mon 28 Jul 14

Riddlesden righteous says...

It is a nursery ! There is no head teacher. Yes of course any parent tries to resolve matters in house directly with the provider . I am not disclosing all the ins and outs but chose to take the route I did for various reasons . I have defended my actions - not that I have to but since I chose to make it public knowledge I also have had an overwhelming urge to defend my son who at times is no angel but did not deserve the punishment of exclusion through alleged gossip
It is a nursery ! There is no head teacher. Yes of course any parent tries to resolve matters in house directly with the provider . I am not disclosing all the ins and outs but chose to take the route I did for various reasons . I have defended my actions - not that I have to but since I chose to make it public knowledge I also have had an overwhelming urge to defend my son who at times is no angel but did not deserve the punishment of exclusion through alleged gossip Riddlesden righteous
  • Score: -5

11:13am Mon 28 Jul 14

MarkPullen says...

Riddlesden righteous wrote:
It is a nursery ! There is no head teacher. Yes of course any parent tries to resolve matters in house directly with the provider . I am not disclosing all the ins and outs but chose to take the route I did for various reasons . I have defended my actions - not that I have to but since I chose to make it public knowledge I also have had an overwhelming urge to defend my son who at times is no angel but did not deserve the punishment of exclusion through alleged gossip
I did ask earlier - the gossip element is purely "alleged"?

You were totally within your rights to complain to OFSTED and you have reasons which you openly state you are withholding which would allow readers to understand the bigger picture.

Please realise though that comments on these pages are based on what information is provided within the story and comments thread.

On other threads those participating have access to additional information and decide not to divulge - they can't then expect readers to see it from their point of view.
[quote][p][bold]Riddlesden righteous[/bold] wrote: It is a nursery ! There is no head teacher. Yes of course any parent tries to resolve matters in house directly with the provider . I am not disclosing all the ins and outs but chose to take the route I did for various reasons . I have defended my actions - not that I have to but since I chose to make it public knowledge I also have had an overwhelming urge to defend my son who at times is no angel but did not deserve the punishment of exclusion through alleged gossip[/p][/quote]I did ask earlier - the gossip element is purely "alleged"? You were totally within your rights to complain to OFSTED and you have reasons which you openly state you are withholding which would allow readers to understand the bigger picture. Please realise though that comments on these pages are based on what information is provided within the story and comments thread. On other threads those participating have access to additional information and decide not to divulge - they can't then expect readers to see it from their point of view. MarkPullen
  • Score: 4

11:28am Mon 28 Jul 14

the_watcher86 says...

It would be interesting to know both why did you decide to report to Ofsted and also why go to the Keighley News if you didnt want to kick up a fuss and make an example of the nursery? Obviously you felt the need to 'make a point' or 'portray' the school in a bad way due to your own experience.

Maybe these actions caused the problems expressed in the article and could have been avoided... these issue are inflicted by the parents decision to kick up such a fuss that the nursery probably felt there was too much 'gossip' surrouding what has happened and therefore has removed the child from nursery whilst investigated.

If the mother was that disgraced and upset to warrant writing to the local paper and going to Ofsted i would have expected them to remove their child from the nursery anyway, not expect the child to stay there whilst exposing the school as somewhere the teachers hit or abuse the children.

Its a two way scenario why should they continue to house your child when your having them investigated for quite serious accusations, surely they would 'cut their losses' and remove your child before you cause any further issues for the nursery whith your OTT reaction
It would be interesting to know both why did you decide to report to Ofsted and also why go to the Keighley News if you didnt want to kick up a fuss and make an example of the nursery? Obviously you felt the need to 'make a point' or 'portray' the school in a bad way due to your own experience. Maybe these actions caused the problems expressed in the article and could have been avoided... these issue are inflicted by the parents decision to kick up such a fuss that the nursery probably felt there was too much 'gossip' surrouding what has happened and therefore has removed the child from nursery whilst investigated. If the mother was that disgraced and upset to warrant writing to the local paper and going to Ofsted i would have expected them to remove their child from the nursery anyway, not expect the child to stay there whilst exposing the school as somewhere the teachers hit or abuse the children. Its a two way scenario why should they continue to house your child when your having them investigated for quite serious accusations, surely they would 'cut their losses' and remove your child before you cause any further issues for the nursery whith your OTT reaction the_watcher86
  • Score: 7

11:56am Mon 28 Jul 14

whisky1 says...

the_watcher86 wrote:
It would be interesting to know both why did you decide to report to Ofsted and also why go to the Keighley News if you didnt want to kick up a fuss and make an example of the nursery? Obviously you felt the need to 'make a point' or 'portray' the school in a bad way due to your own experience.

Maybe these actions caused the problems expressed in the article and could have been avoided... these issue are inflicted by the parents decision to kick up such a fuss that the nursery probably felt there was too much 'gossip' surrouding what has happened and therefore has removed the child from nursery whilst investigated.

If the mother was that disgraced and upset to warrant writing to the local paper and going to Ofsted i would have expected them to remove their child from the nursery anyway, not expect the child to stay there whilst exposing the school as somewhere the teachers hit or abuse the children.

Its a two way scenario why should they continue to house your child when your having them investigated for quite serious accusations, surely they would 'cut their losses' and remove your child before you cause any further issues for the nursery whith your OTT reaction
Nail hit firmly on the head...the fact that Angry from Riddlesden has continued her "campaign" on here speaks volumes and puts the Schools decision in perspective. If there was a genuine concern any sensible parent would have withdrawn their child. The school obviously did not wish to expose itself to the risk of more allegations against staff or the unpleasantness outside school. I am sure they can do without the unnecessary hassle. Meanwhile Mrs A has to get the last word having previously signed off...we are getting a pretty good idea where the fault lies in this....
[quote][p][bold]the_watcher86[/bold] wrote: It would be interesting to know both why did you decide to report to Ofsted and also why go to the Keighley News if you didnt want to kick up a fuss and make an example of the nursery? Obviously you felt the need to 'make a point' or 'portray' the school in a bad way due to your own experience. Maybe these actions caused the problems expressed in the article and could have been avoided... these issue are inflicted by the parents decision to kick up such a fuss that the nursery probably felt there was too much 'gossip' surrouding what has happened and therefore has removed the child from nursery whilst investigated. If the mother was that disgraced and upset to warrant writing to the local paper and going to Ofsted i would have expected them to remove their child from the nursery anyway, not expect the child to stay there whilst exposing the school as somewhere the teachers hit or abuse the children. Its a two way scenario why should they continue to house your child when your having them investigated for quite serious accusations, surely they would 'cut their losses' and remove your child before you cause any further issues for the nursery whith your OTT reaction[/p][/quote]Nail hit firmly on the head...the fact that Angry from Riddlesden has continued her "campaign" on here speaks volumes and puts the Schools decision in perspective. If there was a genuine concern any sensible parent would have withdrawn their child. The school obviously did not wish to expose itself to the risk of more allegations against staff or the unpleasantness outside school. I am sure they can do without the unnecessary hassle. Meanwhile Mrs A has to get the last word having previously signed off...we are getting a pretty good idea where the fault lies in this.... whisky1
  • Score: 5

7:31pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Riddlesden righteous says...

You can go to Ofsted with many issues, including the management of nurseries etc etc, not just abuse. No one has ever said the child was in immediate danger and if this had been the case then any parent would remove a child. If you don't like the story - turn the page
You can go to Ofsted with many issues, including the management of nurseries etc etc, not just abuse. No one has ever said the child was in immediate danger and if this had been the case then any parent would remove a child. If you don't like the story - turn the page Riddlesden righteous
  • Score: -5

8:18pm Mon 28 Jul 14

jampot2 says...

Hate to drag this out, but the broader issues at stake here are rather more serious, namely:
- the importance of good relations & communications between parents and educational staff (including support and consistency between both when dealing with behavioural issues)
- the correct use of watchdogs and the media
- child abuse more generally
- being cautious with what children say - ensuring facts are correct and checked with other sources
- not spreading incorrect and potentially damaging stories

From my point of view, the latter is particularly important, because that kind of behaviour can ruin reputations, livelihoods and therefore lives. Equally, where treatment of children is genuine abusive, it is vital that dialogue is sought, first of all with other staff members and senior staff. Usually, these should be experienced enough to know a) whether there is any truth in any accusations, b) how to deal with their own staff or c) how to escalate any problems with the relevant authorities.

It is a shame things have gone so far in this instance, but I wish everyone involved easier and more constructive experiences in the future.
Hate to drag this out, but the broader issues at stake here are rather more serious, namely: - the importance of good relations & communications between parents and educational staff (including support and consistency between both when dealing with behavioural issues) - the correct use of watchdogs and the media - child abuse more generally - being cautious with what children say - ensuring facts are correct and checked with other sources - not spreading incorrect and potentially damaging stories From my point of view, the latter is particularly important, because that kind of behaviour can ruin reputations, livelihoods and therefore lives. Equally, where treatment of children is genuine abusive, it is vital that dialogue is sought, first of all with other staff members and senior staff. Usually, these should be experienced enough to know a) whether there is any truth in any accusations, b) how to deal with their own staff or c) how to escalate any problems with the relevant authorities. It is a shame things have gone so far in this instance, but I wish everyone involved easier and more constructive experiences in the future. jampot2
  • Score: 4

8:37pm Mon 28 Jul 14

jimmy k says...

another point to make is anyone who uses a pen name that includes righteous in it must have a very high opinion of themselves unless you were being ironic?
another point to make is anyone who uses a pen name that includes righteous in it must have a very high opinion of themselves unless you were being ironic? jimmy k
  • Score: 5

9:30pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Riddlesden righteous says...

No not righteous ! Just defending my son and family and chose to share my experience. I work long hours, rely on childcare and believe what you want I think we were genuinely mistreated. It's done with now my son has reception class to look forward to ! And before any judgemental posts are posted in 5 years I have never once complained about my daughters school and 6 years ago I wrote to the same nursery thanking them for the nursery provision she had. No more comments to add !
No not righteous ! Just defending my son and family and chose to share my experience. I work long hours, rely on childcare and believe what you want I think we were genuinely mistreated. It's done with now my son has reception class to look forward to ! And before any judgemental posts are posted in 5 years I have never once complained about my daughters school and 6 years ago I wrote to the same nursery thanking them for the nursery provision she had. No more comments to add ! Riddlesden righteous
  • Score: -2

9:51pm Mon 28 Jul 14

MarkPullen says...

Riddlesden righteous wrote:
No not righteous ! Just defending my son and family and chose to share my experience. I work long hours, rely on childcare and believe what you want I think we were genuinely mistreated. It's done with now my son has reception class to look forward to ! And before any judgemental posts are posted in 5 years I have never once complained about my daughters school and 6 years ago I wrote to the same nursery thanking them for the nursery provision she had. No more comments to add !
Maybe righteous isn't the correct word in this case!
[quote][p][bold]Riddlesden righteous[/bold] wrote: No not righteous ! Just defending my son and family and chose to share my experience. I work long hours, rely on childcare and believe what you want I think we were genuinely mistreated. It's done with now my son has reception class to look forward to ! And before any judgemental posts are posted in 5 years I have never once complained about my daughters school and 6 years ago I wrote to the same nursery thanking them for the nursery provision she had. No more comments to add ![/p][/quote]Maybe righteous isn't the correct word in this case! MarkPullen
  • Score: 6

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree