[senco-forum] (no subject)

Sheridan,

I think you deserve a medal for having survived parents like this! 
Although I worked in schools, not directly for PSS, I have experienced the
kind of parents whose sole aim in life seems to be to harass people -
teachers, doctors, doesn't matter who, really!

What you do not need is hassle from others who do not know you or the
circumstances of this case.

To answer a rhetorical question: if mum is not legally married to her
partner, we always went with whatever the child called him - if it was his
first name, we used Mr and surname.  We did the same if it was Dad and
partner - once we'd manage to establish whether it was Ms or Mrs that was
preferred.

Keep up the good work; I hope your son is settling down - some
universities do have really good pastoral support, sadly some don't; good
luck to your school with the inspection.

Regards,

Jean

S Wales

 June,
>
> Fortunately I was not left to defend myself alone. The Senco, I, my line
> manager, and the head of the Psychology Service were all subject to the
> high
> level of complaints from this parent.
>
> It went on for so long because parents complaints are investigated then
> responded to. Each time you thought one issue had been sorted he would
> raise
> another one. Step dad had clearly researched the law etc in minute detail
> and used it to just shower a rain of constant letters. He complained about
> what days the child had his support lessons right up to the type of
> assessment material being used by the Ed Psychs.
>
>
>
> In the end, on the advice of my line manager, I just informed him that I
> considered his complaints to be unjustified and I would no longer respond
> to
> his letters in person. I would refer them on to the LEA. What he then did
> then was to contact me via the Senco, asking for details of this, or that,
> complaining via her so she would have to come and ask me for answers etc.
>
>
>
> Regarding the reference to the term step dad
. I’ve already explained that
> the only reason I raised the point that he was step dad was to point out
> there was no hereditary link to any slow processing speed between the boy
> and the “parents” as suggested by Alyson. So yes it was relevant to the
> point. I knew the “parent” didn’t have slow processing because he wasn’t a
> blood relative.
>
>
>
> Yes. There were indicators that suggested he preferred being known as step
> dad to this particular child.
>
>
>
> Here we go political correctness again. 

... I may be thick but what is
> wrong with the term step dad??? 

. There is nothing disrespectful in that
> term. 
 unless you know something I haven’t heard yet

. Should I refer to
> him as the father given the real father is around??? I don’t think so.
> If
> you want to be so precise I shouldn’t actually call him parent either.
> What
> is the terminology for someone who is the non legal partner of Mum?  What
> relationship are they to the child? I may be wrong but I don’t think there
> is an official term for this?
>
>
>
> I call him step dad simply because that was how he always called himself.
> Obviously I referred to him by his name in work or outside the forum.  Had
> he referred to himself as the child’s Postman Pat I guess I would have
> called him that!! Is it relevant that I refer to Mum as Mum if it had been
> her doing all the complaining??? Oh dear now am I being prejudiced against
> Mum’s!!! I expect if Mum had been step mum and that was how she referred
> to
> herself, I would call her that also.
>
>
>
> My personal views on Motives are as follows June,
>
>
>
> I had a couple of views.
>
>  1. It was almost an obsessive style of behaviour.  In the last email I
> gave
> a personal view that Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy had crossed my mind. I
> felt that the parent almost needed the attention for himself.
>
>
>
> 2. The other possible “motive” was that he was continually looking for
> areas
> where he could claim the LEA was negligent so that he could go down the
> litigation line. There were other indicators that they sought some
> financial
> gain that I can’t go into here.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, June you’ll have to base your opinions of me by the way you
> personally
> interpret my written word. That’s what we all have to do with each other
> in
> the forum. As we are all humans we all perceive what we see and read in
> our
> own individual ways.
>
> Even doing this I warn you to air on the side of caution

 I once wrote a
> note to a colleague. I wrote the brief information she needs and at the
> bottom of the note put the word “ok?” Meaning is that ok? She interpreted
> that one word as me being aggressive and “shouting” at her
. that better
> be
> ok!!!
>
>
>
> Interesting reaction ehh?
>
>
>
> You’ll have to excuse my terseness. I’m having sleepless nights texting my
> son trying to settle the very emotional, dyslexic and stressed out young
> man
> into University.
>
> The school I’m at is being inspected very shortly and everyone around me
> is
> panicking and I am feeling rather tired!!
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Sheridan
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.13/1074 - Release Date:
> 16/10/2007
> 14:14
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by Netintelligence
> http://www.netintelligence.com/email
>