Latest moan from me and you!!!

Maybe they don't read that newspaper

 

This is tantamount to " no kid is a failure" and will be added to the carp heap:
a) being unable to come less than first in a sports day gala
b) no mickey taking of tubbies
c) all children must have a PC - irrespective of whether their parents can afford it or not.
Seems to me teachers just want a cushy ride for their salaries these days. Don't like facing up to reality. There have always been and there will always be winners and losers in life. Who said life was fair?
How will kids ever cope with a day in the workplace if they are not taught to accept this?

Jenny namaste

 

I think there are two different perspectives going on State vs Independent

a) This particular school still has sports day winners, Jenny (Source)
b) Can't comment:
c) At this particular school (An Independent co-educational boarding/day school) I think all the children will have a PC and the parents will have no issues with affording one (or two).

 

They won't cope and it will come as a shock when they realise it's a big bad world out there. Too much molly coddling me thinks.

 

Thanks John. I am NOT a "hardened" Ebay seller, just trying to take advantage of having 1000s of bulbs which probably benefit from being split up and doing my bit to help a small animal sanctuary which doesn't attract the main stream donations. I will have a serious look at parcels2go.com if I have anyboy else who wants large numbers of bulbs.Cheers.

 

Sorry for being a pedant, Fern4 but I felt a strong desire to correct your post

Not all children are "molly coddled" and for quite a number of youngsters in society today, they are only too well aware that life isn't fair and for quite a number of those, it is the resentment of that truth which can turn them away from socially acceptable behaviour! (They already *know* it's a big bad world out there).

In my view, we shouldn't be shielding our youngsters from the realities of this world but teaching them how to cope with the times life invariable does throw you those wobbles and set backs.

 

My post was with reference to Kingswood Preparatory School in Bath - I should have made this clear. I am assuming that when the head teacher asked that no invitations were to be issued at school unless the whole of the class were invited then this was directed at ALL pupils not just some of them. So they're ALL being too molly coddled in my opinion.

I don't believe all children in society are molly coddled. Again I was referring to the school above.

 

It was indeed directed at all pupils, of that school, who fall under the jurisdiction of that particular Head , Fern: in that you are quite correct
Whether that is a form of "molly coddling" is open to debate (of course!). It was not my first thought though (nor, my 2nd, or even 3rd!). Ok, so my first thought was to look into the topic from more than one angle

My understanding of the edict is: it is meant as a form of minimising divisiveness, promoting tact, kindness and (lets face it) a degree of old fashioned etiquette/manners? I have also stated (above) that the argument, although well intentioned, is fundamentally flawed.

But, I do struggle to comprehend how this can be labelled: "molly coddling"? Just who, in your opinion , is being "molly coddled"? The invitOR, the invitEE or ... the non-invited?

 

Forgive me for butting in here "M" but I can see what Fern means by "molly coddling" in this instance. Both parties are being shielded from the fact that you 'ain't always gonna have a great day. Sometimes - it hits the fan and you get an eyeful and you must learn to accept it and deal with it.
And you WILL SOMETIMES FALL OVER IN THE PLAYGROUND but you should still be allowed to learn HOW TO SKIP OUTDOORS....
grumpy Jenny

 

I think the "intention" is to shield those non-invited, and to educate those doing the inviting in a lesson of tact. I don't see either as molly coddling.

I do see it as a lesson of "manners" and discretion, to the invite-EE's' and I do see it as a life lesson to those who may find out about it later and, when the penny drops, blubber about *not* being invited. But, at that point, that is the parents role to prepare them for life's vicissitudes and not solely the responsibility of this (or, ANY!) school.

I do get cross when the boundaries of parental "care" gets mixed/confused with "pastoral" care!

The reason I suggested (earlier in the thread) that it is honourable in intention, yet flawed in practise is because: kids talk to one another! What difference does it make whether those un-invited learn of it pre-party or post-party: they *will* learn of it and they *will* still (potentially) feel a sense of exclusion. But, who hasn't felt that at one time or another in their lifetime?

The real question, begs to be asked: is this a school issue? Or, one of parental responsibility? Are schools supposed to 'parent' as well as educate? Or, should parents stop abdicating responsibility and "passing the buck" onto those in education, and have the courage and confidence to pass on their own moral compass, which includes, manners, etiquette, tact, sympathy, empathy, values, fairness, ethics? That is not molly coddling: that is life!

 

Agreed!
(with the proviso that - on occasion - even the parents are "selective" when it comes to the "whole" story vs a media 'storm' vs the Warhol effect ).

 

I'm going to opt out of this one. I am reaching the ripe old age of 50, never wanted children and didn't have any so to be honest it's a discussion I really couldn't give a hoot about! Sorry, just saying it like it is.

I think my point was that in life, not every one is going to like you so I feel it's better to find that out early on and learn how to deal with it. I remember either getting an invite to parties or not being invited at all. There was no worrying from teachers about whether we'd be scarred for life we just had to deal with it! Over and out!