Was at the ACS Carnival on 14 November 2009 with Melody and thought that it was one of those carnivals that were better missed than to attend (despite the fact that my Uncle kindly gave me S$30 to spend at the carnival through the purchase of coupon from his friend).
The whole episode was an experience that I rather forget quickly than to let it remain in my brainwave for a period of time:
We arrived to see 2 lolliipop man stopping traffic. They were so pathetic that it looks as though they came out straight from their lalaland having a bad dream. However, as we ventured inner into the school premises, and towards the central area of the Carnival, we were not expecting a rude shock to welcome us.
The food price at the Carnival is priced like a 6 star hotel but taste perfectlly like your hawker centre - or even worst. A plate of Nasi Briyani sets you back by S$6 (coupon purchase where S$1 = ACS$1) and a hotdog bun is at $2-$3. A cup of Bandung - post mix type - is S$2 and the cheapest thing (and most delicious) you can find are the 'Fried Quail Eggs', priced at S$1 for 4 eggs. Needless to say, the queue was the longest in the Carnival.
The main point of this post is not to rant about how bad the food or pricing were - but about a situation that arose that made me feel super disappointed about the school - and the teaching profession as a whole:-
Before I relate the incident, I would wish to ask a question: What is the difference between a Father and a Divorced Father? (Now... Take 5 minutes to consider this question before reading on)
I always believe that when we are born out, the sperm-providing party is the Father while the 'hole' that the baby came out from would naturally be the Mother of the child. So, does being divorced stripped them off their position to their children - or even devoid them of the capacity to fulfil their duties as one?
I saw a Father (apparently divorced) being asked by a teacher (identified as Ms Josephine See) to leave the classroom apparently due to a 'Court Order' that was never produced to the Father, and the Security (someone called 'Sam') was even called to 'chase the Father out'. The questions that are being posed are:
1) Had the teacher in question even considered the repurcussions that arose due to her actions (or moment of folly) and what are they? Not only did she managed to cause much embarassment to the Father, she had also made the whole class know about the problems of a particular classmate who have some 'family problems'.
2) In chasing the Father out due to some 'Court Order', did the teacher even produce the said documents (be it an Order or a letter) to substantiate her claims? As a teaching leader, she would had known that things said without any evidences are considered to be an assertion and are at best, should be treated at face value.
3) What was the intention of the Father entering the said classroom? To see his son or to just merely patronise the stall that belongs to his son's class - and give him his support?
Moreover, is chasing the Father out the best option and calling the security being the best measure to 'combat the apperance of the Father'? Is that what the school (ACS Bakar Road) means when they said that 'The Best is Yet to Be'.
I think that the school should just explain their stand to the parent - and even to the member of the public - since this member had witnessed the whole fracas. But my gut feel is that even if they do reply, it would be something along this line:
Mock Letter of Reply from ACS ('Buckle' Road) Dear Mr XXX,
We refer to the letter that you had written to us indicating your displeasure in an event that occured during the ACS Carnival that was held on 14 November 2009 at our premise.
First and foremost, we would like to thank you for your support and participation in the mentioned event as we allow our students to have a feel as to how setting up a business is like. Moreover, it would also allow the students to have a first-hand experience in dealing with real-life situations like money trading and the purchase/sales of food and souveniers.
As for the unfortunate event that you had witnessed, it stemmed from a misunderstanding of the situation that you has seen. We had interviewed the teacher in question and found out that the said parent in which you had mentioned, was intent on seeing his child. According to the form teacher of the student, the father was very insistent on handing over a 'DS Lite' that he had bought for his son. As a safety precaution, and also not to traumatize the student, we decided that it was in the best interst for the Father to leave the classroom.
At all times, the teacher was worried about the safety and well being of the child and views asking the Father to leave the classroom as the best and most viable option so as not to make the child feel traumatize.
When we relate the incident to the child, it was visibly clear that the child felt ashamed of his Father's deeds and could not understand why his dad would make such an action. We also realised that the child was non-chantlant after that and did not enjoy the carnival as a result.
As it would inconvinent the teacher to carry the Order around, we would had expected the Father to come to the reception to verify with us if there was any proof (documentary or verbal) that he wants to confirm. He did not do the said.
However, we are in agreeance that this matter could had been solved in a more amicable way. We would also wish to reitearate that the whole incident arose due to the Father's insistance in wanting to see his son - and also considering the well-being of the child.
We would like to thank you for writing this letter to highlight your displeasure of the said incident. We also look forward to your continual support in future events. Please note that any donations to the school can be made via the mode of the following: (1) Bank transfer (Acc No. xxxx-xxxx-xxx) (2) Donation Card (3) Cheque (Made payable to "XXX") (4) Internet Transfer (5) Cash at our reception
