subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
duty of care extends to post school activities that the school has organised.
Now the freaking school are at it!
- Thread starter Norm
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
duty of care extends to post school activities that the school has organised.
Yes, I accept that.
How a child gets there and home again is a different matter.
If a child has an accident on the way to, or from the school/rowing club is the school negligent?
subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
if the school has organised the rowing club they have duty of care to the pupils on how they get there, hence the letter. it is classed as an extension of the school hours
in loco parentis .
it used to extend to being responsible for the welfare of the kids till they got home/ into the care of the parent/guardian. not sure if it still does but if i ask er indoors who is a teacher she will let me know.
when my eldest stays late in school for film club etc we have to write a letter saying she can walk home on her own even though she normally does when not staying late.
in loco parentis .
it used to extend to being responsible for the welfare of the kids till they got home/ into the care of the parent/guardian. not sure if it still does but if i ask er indoors who is a teacher she will let me know.
when my eldest stays late in school for film club etc we have to write a letter saying she can walk home on her own even though she normally does when not staying late.
I don't wear a helmet, but if I did I'd rather be a cyclist than a rower.
http://www.rm-platform.com/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=1&Itemid=1
http://www.rm-platform.com/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=1&Itemid=1
Duty of Care has a legal meaning, which if breached could well lead to a claim for negligence.
I doubt that a school could fully exercise a duty of care for each child’s travel to and from school/rowing club.
If a child slips on an icy patch in the playground, the school would probably be held responsible, but on the pavement outside the school or half a mile away on the route to school ?
I'm sure most(all) teachers act in what they see as the child's best interests, but claiming responsibility, where it might not exist is dangerous ground.
subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
oh beleive me they wouldn't be claiming responsibility for anything they didn't have to.Lots of trips don't take place because nobody wants to accept the responsibility IF things go wrong.
I fully understand what duty of care is. I set to work , daily, in excess of 100 people. I have a duty of care to all of them and fully understand the legal implications. nobody can fully exercise duty of care its all down to assesing the risk and implementing control measures taking into account the time cost benefit and effort to control the risk.
400bhp
Guru
[QUOTE 1687233, member: 45"]I'd put myself in his shoes and be aware that he's not familiar with the arguments and that this is all new to him. There's a danger that such a "radical" idea may easily be dismissed as a group just arguing against something that they don't want, so I would keep it simple and just focus on the main facts.[/quote]
^^
Important.
^^
Important.
I wrote that with the intention of sending it last night, and I went through a few revisions before sticking it on here.
If you had seen an earlier draft, you would understand the apologies.
Your point is well made, though, as are many others. I'll re-draft later.
I'm still fecking livid that they have written that, though. If they were contemplating checks to ensure that motor vehicles which they allow onto the school grounds are legally compliant, I'd almost understand that. So what makes them feel that they can dictate something which is not a legal requirement and of no proven benefit and which will discourage cycling.
If you had seen an earlier draft, you would understand the apologies.
Your point is well made, though, as are many others. I'll re-draft later.
I'm still fecking livid that they have written that, though. If they were contemplating checks to ensure that motor vehicles which they allow onto the school grounds are legally compliant, I'd almost understand that. So what makes them feel that they can dictate something which is not a legal requirement and of no proven benefit and which will discourage cycling.
subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
I wrote that with the intention of sending it last night, and I went through a few revisions before sticking it on here.
If you had seen an earlier draft, you would understand the apologies.
Your point is well made, though, as are many others. I'll re-draft later.
I'm still fecking livid that they have written that, though. If they were contemplating checks to ensure that motor vehicles which they allow onto the school grounds are legally compliant, I'd almost understand that. So what makes them feel that they can dictate something which is not a legal requirement and of no proven benefit and which will discourage cycling.
headteacher with a megalomaniac disposition (apparently that all of them )
Needs to be much shorter.
Start by applauding the school: praise them for wanting to make sure that cycles are properly maintained and are well-lit at night and that they are taking steps to enforce this. Only then when you have the recipient onside, express your concern that the helmet requirement is not in accordance with scientific evidence and that you worry that it will discourage children both from cycling - and its attendant health benefits - and from attending post-school activities at all. Keep this middle section short and focused: you don't need to counter every single point made in the original letter, just to make the case that helmet mandation is on balance a bad idea. Finish by saying how much your son enjoys his rowing and that you're grateful to the people running the club for giving him the opportunity
If you have any kind of cycle training qualification or if you're mechanically minded, you might also take this opportunity to volunteer to look over some of the kids bikes to assess their roadworthiness and fix them up
Start by applauding the school: praise them for wanting to make sure that cycles are properly maintained and are well-lit at night and that they are taking steps to enforce this. Only then when you have the recipient onside, express your concern that the helmet requirement is not in accordance with scientific evidence and that you worry that it will discourage children both from cycling - and its attendant health benefits - and from attending post-school activities at all. Keep this middle section short and focused: you don't need to counter every single point made in the original letter, just to make the case that helmet mandation is on balance a bad idea. Finish by saying how much your son enjoys his rowing and that you're grateful to the people running the club for giving him the opportunity
If you have any kind of cycle training qualification or if you're mechanically minded, you might also take this opportunity to volunteer to look over some of the kids bikes to assess their roadworthiness and fix them up
Davidc
Guru
- Location
- Somerset UK
Let us know the response.
I think it's a good thing I'm not responsible for any school pupils any more, my response letter might have been more ferocious.
I think it's a good thing I'm not responsible for any school pupils any more, my response letter might have been more ferocious.
This is what narks me too. It'd certainly be the gist of my response to them; not so much the "what makes them feel" bit (since you're effectively asking them to defend their position) but certainly the 'legal requirement' aspect.
- Status