UK and Europe · Public discussion

Governors' Meeting

Started by Tilly · · Last activity · 26 posts · 437 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
23 March 2005
Last activity
5 April 2005
Original author
Tilly
Posts
26
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
437
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 26
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. The cycle training policy was discussed at the school's governors'
    meeting tonight.

    Draft Policy - now official with just one change.

    ==========

    Acme Hall Primary School
    Cycle Training Policy

    Aims of Cycle Training
    " to make children aware of possible hazards when cycling;
    " for children to cycle in a way that makes them more visible to
    other road users;
    " to give children the confidence to cycle on roads according to
    their training and ability;
    " to give children a basic understanding of bicycle maintenance.

    Who is it for?
    From September 2005:
    " all children in KS2 who cannot cycle without support will be
    offered Level 1A training;
    " all children in Year 4 will be offered Level 1B and Level 2
    cycle training during the Summer Term;
    " all children in Years 5 & 6, not yet at Level 2, will be
    offered Level 1B and Level 2 training;
    " some Year 6 children may be offered Level 3 training;
    " where places are limited, preference may be given to groups
    under represented as cyclists, this could include cultural minorities,
    those from low income families and girls;
    " every effort should be made to include children with physical
    disabilities.

    Instructor pupil ratios
    " 1:2 or better for Level 1A training;
    " 1:6 or better for Levels 1B and 2 training; 1:4 is the
    recommended ratio;
    " 1:4 or better for Level 3 training.
    " Two instructors must accompany any group if cycling outside
    school premises; they should carry a first aid kit and a mobile phone.
    All cycle training must be conducted by an accredited instructor
    listed with the Cycle Touring Club.

    Bicycles
    Bicycles must be in good working order and in a roadworthy condition.
    Instructors should check that the bike is adjusted correctly for the
    child and make any necessary adjustments. Instructors should refuse
    to train children if they judge their bikes to be unroadworthy until
    necessary repairs have been made.

    Helmets
    Parents must decide if they want their child to wear a helmet, or if
    they delegate the responsibility to their child. Instructors should
    check that helmets fit correctly and adjust straps if necessary. If a
    helmet cannot be adjusted to fit correctly, and the parent has asked
    that a helmet be worn, the child should not be allowed to take part in
    training until they have a correctly fitting helmet.

    Review
    Summer Term 2006

    Appendix

    The National Standards

    Level 1 - Off road instruction focusing on bicycle handling skills and
    basic manoeuvres:

    A1 get on and off the bike without help;
    A2 start off and pedal without help;
    A3 stop without help;
    A4 ride along without help for at least one minute;
    A5 make the bike go where they want;

    B1 use their gears;
    B2 stop quickly with control;
    B3 manoeuvre safely to avoid objects
    B4 look all around, including behind, without wobbling;
    B5 signal right and left without wobbling;
    B6 carry out a simple bike check.

    Level 2 - On road training incorporating simple junctions in
    moderately built up areas:

    1 start an on-road journey;
    2 finish an on-road journey;
    3 be aware of everything around them, including behind, as they
    ride;
    4 understand how and when to signal their intentions to other
    road users;
    5 understand where to ride on the roads they are using;
    6 pass parked or slower moving vehicles;
    7 pass side roads;
    8 turn right into a major road and left into a minor road;
    9 turn left into a major road and right into a minor road;
    10 be able to take the correct carriageway lane when they need
    to;
    11 decide where cycle lanes can help their journey and
    demonstrate correct use;
    12 explain why they have made decisions during riding are thereby
    demonstrate understanding of safe riding strategy;
    13 demonstrate a basic understanding of the highway code, in
    particular how to interpret road signs.

    Level 3 - On road training involving complex junctions, making
    journeys and route planning:

    1 how to use roundabouts;
    2 how to use junctions controlled by traffic lights;
    3 how to use multi-lane roads and turn left onto them;
    4 an understanding of filtering and an ability to decide when to
    filter and when to wait;
    5 how to use both on and off-road cycle facilities;
    6 hazard perception and strategy to deal with hazards;
    7 an understanding of route planning.

    =====

    As expected, serious concerns were raised over the helmet issue. A
    majority felt that cycle helmets should be made mandatory. I pointed
    out that out of 20 children, 17 parents insist their child(ren) wear a
    helmet during training and 3 parents leave the decision to their
    child. No parent insists that a helmet is not worn. I expressed an
    opinion that those 3 children would make an informed and sensible
    decision about helmet wearing, while the other 17 would wear one
    simply because they are told to. The governors were unconvinced,
    however, they agreed to run with the policy as it stands with one
    change. The review date is changed to Autumn 2005. Helmets will be
    on the agenda again.

    I really don't want to get into a debate with the governors about the
    pros and cons of helmet use - only the issue of choice.

  2. Tilly said:

    As expected, serious concerns were raised over the helmet issue. A
    majority felt that cycle helmets should be made mandatory. I pointed
    out that out of 20 children, 17 parents insist their child(ren) wear a
    helmet during training and 3 parents leave the decision to their
    child. No parent insists that a helmet is not worn. I expressed an
    opinion that those 3 children would make an informed and sensible
    decision about helmet wearing, while the other 17 would wear one
    simply because they are told to. The governors were unconvinced,
    however, they agreed to run with the policy as it stands with one
    change. The review date is changed to Autumn 2005. Helmets will be
    on the agenda again.

    I really don't want to get into a debate with the governors about the
    pros and cons of helmet use - only the issue of choice.

    Do you really expect 8-11 year olds to make an "informed and sensible
    decision" about anything, let alone something as muddy as helmet
    use? At that age, the decision will be based on "Do I think I look
    cool in my helmet or not?". There is no way that children of that
    age are in a position to make an informed and sensible decision - the
    complexity of the pro- and anti- arguments are well beyond the
    scope of any kid that age, even if they are made aware of the
    issues behind the debate. Look how broad the spectrum of opinion
    in this group is - it's not a clear issue to the majority of adults,
    and even for those who have made an informed and sensible decision
    it's more of a polarising issue - one person's information and
    senses take them to one side of the debate while another's take
    them to the, err, other.

    Let the kids decide, perhaps - I'm not arguing either way here, but
    don't expect it to be an informed and sensible by any meaningful, adult,
    standard!

    Well, perhaps I will argue either way. I think it should be a decision
    for the parents, actually, and then they can base their decision on
    whatever criterea they like, and if one of those is the kid's opinion
    so be it, I guess. I guess they have to sign something to say the kid
    can do the training, so long as it's made clear on there that the
    decision is theirs and theirs alone then so be it. In principle,
    all the parents have made a decision anyway, 17 of the say "helmet"
    and 3 of them say "don't care". If and when helmets become compulsory
    then the decision is removed from the parents, but I don't really
    see it as the school's role to mandate something which is not
    mandated by law or regulation.

    --
    Trevor Barton

  3. Trevor Barton said:

    Do you really expect 8-11 year olds to make an "informed and sensible
    decision" about anything, let alone something as muddy as helmet
    use? At that age, the decision will be based on "Do I think I look
    cool in my helmet or not?".

    With 8-11 year olds, the issue is *not* to be different or stand out.
    If everyone else is wearing a helmet, they will want to wear one too.

    Wanting to be noticed as an individual becomes more of an issue post
    puberty.

    Quoted message said:

    Let the kids decide, perhaps - I'm not arguing either way here, but
    don't expect it to be an informed and sensible by any meaningful, adult,
    standard!

    With 85% of children wearing helmets and the remaining 15% having the
    option to wear helmets, I see no benefit in a compulsion rule.

    I expect the 15% of children who have the choice to act more
    responsibly about their helmet use than the other 85% who have no
    choice.

  4. Tilly said:
    Trevor Barton said:

    Do you really expect 8-11 year olds to make an "informed and sensible
    decision" about anything, let alone something as muddy as helmet
    use? At that age, the decision will be based on "Do I think I look
    cool in my helmet or not?".

    With 8-11 year olds, the issue is *not* to be different or stand out.
    If everyone else is wearing a helmet, they will want to wear one too.

    Oh well, your experience with that age range is different to mine, then.
    I'd agree that there is an element of not standing out, but equally
    there will be "You have to wear a helmet and I don't, ha ha", and a
    whole plethora of other 8 yo considerations, none of which will be based
    on the real safety-or-not issues of helmet wearing. That does not bode
    well for an informed and sensible decision.

    Quoted message said:

    Wanting to be noticed as an individual becomes more of an issue post
    puberty.

    Quoted message said:

    Let the kids decide, perhaps - I'm not arguing either way here, but
    don't expect it to be an informed and sensible by any meaningful, adult,
    standard!

    With 85% of children wearing helmets and the remaining 15% having the
    option to wear helmets, I see no benefit in a compulsion rule.

    Well I agree with that but not for those reasons.

    Quoted message said:

    I expect the 15% of children who have the choice to act more
    responsibly about their helmet use than the other 85% who have no
    choice.

    But you've just said that they'll wear one not to stand out, how is that
    more responsible? If anything it's less responsible because they're
    doing it for arbitrary reasons not based on the benefit or lack thereof
    of wearing a helmet? It's certainly not "informed and sensible", is it?

    By implication, you expect them decide to wear one, and by inference I might
    conclude that you actually think it's a good idea which is why you see
    no benifit in compulsion :-)

    --
    Trevor Barton

  5. "Tilly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    The cycle training policy was discussed at the school's governors'
    meeting tonight.

    Draft Policy - now official with just one change.

    ==========

    Acme Hall Primary School
    Cycle Training Policy

    Aims of Cycle Training
    " to make children aware of possible hazards when cycling;
    " for children to cycle in a way that makes them more visible to
    other road users;
    " to give children the confidence to cycle on roads according to
    their training and ability;
    " to give children a basic understanding of bicycle maintenance.

    Who is it for?
    From September 2005:
    " all children in KS2 who cannot cycle without support will be
    offered Level 1A training;
    " all children in Year 4 will be offered Level 1B and Level 2
    cycle training during the Summer Term;
    " all children in Years 5 & 6, not yet at Level 2, will be
    offered Level 1B and Level 2 training;
    " some Year 6 children may be offered Level 3 training;
    " where places are limited, preference may be given to groups
    under represented as cyclists, this could include cultural minorities,
    those from low income families and girls;
    " every effort should be made to include children with physical
    disabilities.

    Instructor pupil ratios
    " 1:2 or better for Level 1A training;
    " 1:6 or better for Levels 1B and 2 training; 1:4 is the
    recommended ratio;
    " 1:4 or better for Level 3 training.
    " Two instructors must accompany any group if cycling outside
    school premises; they should carry a first aid kit and a mobile phone.
    All cycle training must be conducted by an accredited instructor
    listed with the Cycle Touring Club.

    Bicycles
    Bicycles must be in good working order and in a roadworthy condition.
    Instructors should check that the bike is adjusted correctly for the
    child and make any necessary adjustments. Instructors should refuse
    to train children if they judge their bikes to be unroadworthy until
    necessary repairs have been made.

    Helmets
    Parents must decide if they want their child to wear a helmet, or if
    they delegate the responsibility to their child. Instructors should
    check that helmets fit correctly and adjust straps if necessary. If a
    helmet cannot be adjusted to fit correctly, and the parent has asked
    that a helmet be worn, the child should not be allowed to take part in
    training until they have a correctly fitting helmet.

    Review
    Summer Term 2006

    Appendix

    The National Standards

    Level 1 - Off road instruction focusing on bicycle handling skills and
    basic manoeuvres:

    A1 get on and off the bike without help;
    A2 start off and pedal without help;
    A3 stop without help;
    A4 ride along without help for at least one minute;
    A5 make the bike go where they want;

    B1 use their gears;
    B2 stop quickly with control;
    B3 manoeuvre safely to avoid objects
    B4 look all around, including behind, without wobbling;
    B5 signal right and left without wobbling;
    B6 carry out a simple bike check.

    Level 2 - On road training incorporating simple junctions in
    moderately built up areas:

    1 start an on-road journey;
    2 finish an on-road journey;
    3 be aware of everything around them, including behind, as they
    ride;
    4 understand how and when to signal their intentions to other
    road users;
    5 understand where to ride on the roads they are using;
    6 pass parked or slower moving vehicles;
    7 pass side roads;
    8 turn right into a major road and left into a minor road;
    9 turn left into a major road and right into a minor road;
    10 be able to take the correct carriageway lane when they need
    to;
    11 decide where cycle lanes can help their journey and
    demonstrate correct use;
    12 explain why they have made decisions during riding are thereby
    demonstrate understanding of safe riding strategy;
    13 demonstrate a basic understanding of the highway code, in
    particular how to interpret road signs.

    Level 3 - On road training involving complex junctions, making
    journeys and route planning:

    1 how to use roundabouts;
    2 how to use junctions controlled by traffic lights;
    3 how to use multi-lane roads and turn left onto them;
    4 an understanding of filtering and an ability to decide when to
    filter and when to wait;
    5 how to use both on and off-road cycle facilities;
    6 hazard perception and strategy to deal with hazards;
    7 an understanding of route planning.

    =====

    As expected, serious concerns were raised over the helmet issue. A
    majority felt that cycle helmets should be made mandatory. I pointed
    out that out of 20 children, 17 parents insist their child(ren) wear a
    helmet during training and 3 parents leave the decision to their
    child. No parent insists that a helmet is not worn. I expressed an
    opinion that those 3 children would make an informed and sensible
    decision about helmet wearing, while the other 17 would wear one
    simply because they are told to. The governors were unconvinced,
    however, they agreed to run with the policy as it stands with one
    change. The review date is changed to Autumn 2005. Helmets will be
    on the agenda again.

    I really don't want to get into a debate with the governors about the
    pros and cons of helmet use - only the issue of choice.

    Is there not a legal issue here? If the child is involved in an accident
    while under the supervision of the school or its representatives, and
    sustained a head injury that *may* have been preventable had a helmet been
    warn, could the school and its governors who have approved the policy be
    held accountable? I am sure there will be some circumstances where it may be
    argued that wearing a helmet has contributed to an injury also which turns
    the argument around the other way. May be as the issue is so clouded the
    parents should have to sign a consent form which clearly states their
    preference for or against the compulsory wearing of a helmet?

  6. Following on from Tilly's message. . .

    Quoted message said:

    Aims of Cycle Training
    " to make children aware of possible hazards when cycling;
    " for children to cycle in a way that makes them more visible to
    other road users;
    " to give children the confidence to cycle on roads according to
    their training and ability;
    " to give children a basic understanding of bicycle maintenance.

    * Bike control?
    * There is more to cycling than 'road safety'. Try "Enjoy a cheap, safe,
    fun, healthy and convenient mode of transport."

    Quoted message said:

    As expected, serious concerns were raised over the helmet issue. A
    majority felt that cycle helmets should be made mandatory. I pointed
    out that out of 20 children, 17 parents insist their child(ren) wear a
    helmet during training and 3 parents leave the decision to their
    child. No parent insists that a helmet is not worn. I expressed an
    opinion that those 3 children would make an informed and sensible
    decision about helmet wearing, while the other 17 would wear one
    simply because they are told to. The governors were unconvinced,
    however, they agreed to run with the policy as it stands with one
    change. The review date is changed to Autumn 2005. Helmets will be
    on the agenda again.

    I really don't want to get into a debate with the governors about the
    pros and cons of helmet use - only the issue of choice.

    * If you /have/ to wear it/do it etc then that's going to be the first
    thing that you /don't/ do when you get a bit of freedom. An imposed
    rule is going to have a resentment factor built-in.

    * Ask the govs what teachers should say to justify helmet use when
    children ask.

    --
    PETER FOX Not the same since the exam marking business failed
    [email hidden]
    2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
    Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk>

  7. On 24/3/05 7:59 am, in article [email hidden],

    Trevor Barton said:

    Let the kids decide, perhaps - I'm not arguing either way here, but
    don't expect it to be an informed and sensible by any meaningful, adult,
    standard!

    I'd expect it to be as meaningful and informed as the majority of adult
    decisions on helmet wearing. I don't expect it to be meaningful and informed
    by a scientific standard.

    ...d

  8. erics said:

    May be as the issue is so clouded the
    parents should have to sign a consent form which clearly states their
    preference for or against the compulsory wearing of a helmet?

    I think that the school's policy is very clear.

    Parents are informed that helmet wearing is a matter between
    themselves and their child. They must inform the school their choice.
    The school will enforce the parent's choice.

    In the case of responsibility being delegated by the parent to the
    child, it is unstated that instructors will not prevent or discourage
    helmet use.

    If such a child was discouraged or prevented from using a helmet by an
    instructor, there may be a claim against the school. I cannot foresee
    such a situation arising in the first place.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I expect the 15% of children who have the choice to act more
    responsibly about their helmet use than the other 85% who have no
    choice.

    But you've just said that they'll wear one not to stand out, how is that
    more responsible?

    OK, so I didn't argue my point very well.

    If you consider helmet wearing to be a good thing for children, it is
    far more effective for a child to wear a helmet because they think it
    is a sensible thing to do than for them to wear a helmet because they
    are told to.

  9. Tilly said:
    erics said:

    May be as the issue is so clouded the
    parents should have to sign a consent form which clearly states their
    preference for or against the compulsory wearing of a helmet?

    I think that the school's policy is very clear.

    Parents are informed that helmet wearing is a matter between
    themselves and their child. They must inform the school their choice.
    The school will enforce the parent's choice.

    In the case of responsibility being delegated by the parent to the
    child, it is unstated that instructors will not prevent or discourage
    helmet use.

    If such a child was discouraged or prevented from using a helmet by an
    instructor, there may be a claim against the school. I cannot foresee
    such a situation arising in the first place.

    I think that's the right policy.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I expect the 15% of children who have the choice to act more
    responsibly about their helmet use than the other 85% who have no
    choice.

    But you've just said that they'll wear one not to stand out, how is that
    more responsible?

    OK, so I didn't argue my point very well.

    If you consider helmet wearing to be a good thing for children, it is
    far more effective for a child to wear a helmet because they think it
    is a sensible thing to do than for them to wear a helmet because they
    are told to.

    I agree with that, too. I guess the word you're looking for in place
    of "responsible" is, err, umm, oh bugger it, now I've come to type
    it it's left my mind for good <-)

    --
    Trevor Barton

  10. Trevor Barton said:


    Do you really expect 8-11 year olds to make an "informed and sensible
    decision" about anything, let alone something as muddy as helmet
    use? At that age, the decision will be based on "Do I think I look
    cool in my helmet or not?".

    In my experience of two girls at that age it was more based on whether
    it was pink and had my little pony or somesuch on it.

    Quoted message said:

    - the
    complexity of the pro- and anti- arguments are well beyond the
    scope of any kid that age, even if they are made aware of the
    issues behind the debate.

    And most adults. Fortunately it doesn't matter much whichever way they
    decide. The fact that they have decided to get training is far more
    important and if having a pink little pony helmet on their head gets
    them to do the training, that's fine by me.

    Quoted message said:


    Let the kids decide, perhaps - I'm not arguing either way here, but
    don't expect it to be an informed and sensible by any meaningful, adult,
    standard!

    Whatever gets the kids to do the training is what matters and letting
    them chose other minor matters of little import to achieve that
    objective is something to be encouraged.

    Tony

  11. erics said:


    Is there not a legal issue here? If the child is involved in an accident
    while under the supervision of the school or its representatives, and
    sustained a head injury that *may* have been preventable had a helmet been
    warn, could the school and its governors who have approved the policy be
    held accountable?

    The policy is clear and reached after due consideration. The Courts are
    usually hard when nobody has bothered to think about it at all. But
    where it has been carefully thought about it becomes a matter of
    judgement and whether the judgement was reasonable. The High Court has
    accepted the view that helmets would not have helped in even a simple
    cycling fall. So I doubt that any case would succeed.

    There is probably a much stronger case for them not being allowed to
    play in the playground without helmets. There is no policy, no
    consideration of the issue and yet trips and falls are a major cause of
    head injuries in children in circumstances that are ideally matched to
    the protective capabilities of helmets.

    Tony

  12. Peter Fox said:

    Following on from Tilly's message. . .

    Quoted message said:

    Aims of Cycle Training
    " to make children aware of possible hazards when cycling;
    " for children to cycle in a way that makes them more visible to
    other road users;
    " to give children the confidence to cycle on roads according to
    their training and ability;
    " to give children a basic understanding of bicycle maintenance.

    * Bike control?

    I feel that is covered in the appendix. Cycle maintenance too, but
    not so obvious.

    Quoted message said:

    * There is more to cycling than 'road safety'. Try "Enjoy a cheap, safe,
    fun, healthy and convenient mode of transport."

    Quoted message said:

    As expected, serious concerns were raised over the helmet issue. A
    majority felt that cycle helmets should be made mandatory. I pointed
    out that out of 20 children, 17 parents insist their child(ren) wear a
    helmet during training and 3 parents leave the decision to their
    child. No parent insists that a helmet is not worn. I expressed an
    opinion that those 3 children would make an informed and sensible
    decision about helmet wearing, while the other 17 would wear one
    simply because they are told to. The governors were unconvinced,
    however, they agreed to run with the policy as it stands with one
    change. The review date is changed to Autumn 2005. Helmets will be
    on the agenda again.

    I really don't want to get into a debate with the governors about the
    pros and cons of helmet use - only the issue of choice.

    * If you /have/ to wear it/do it etc then that's going to be the first
    thing that you /don't/ do when you get a bit of freedom. An imposed
    rule is going to have a resentment factor built-in.

    Yes, a reasoned argument.

    Quoted message said:

    * Ask the govs what teachers should say to justify helmet use when
    children ask.

    Too argumentative.

  13. Tony Raven said:
    Quoted message said:

    Let the kids decide, perhaps - I'm not arguing either way here, but
    don't expect it to be an informed and sensible by any meaningful, adult,
    standard!

    Quoted message said:

    Whatever gets the kids to do the training is what matters and letting
    them chose other minor matters of little import to achieve that
    objective is something to be encouraged.

    Absolutely right, 'cept, IMO, that aint the way the majority view it.
    But when something goes wrong and little 8 year old Amelia bumps her
    head, a professional trainer/organiser who says "Ah but she was allowed
    to make her own decision" may find themselves on dodgy ground.

    John B

  14. Tony Raven said:


    erics said:


    Is there not a legal issue here? If the child is involved in an accident
    while under the supervision of the school or its representatives, and
    sustained a head injury that *may* have been preventable had a helmet been
    warn, could the school and its governors who have approved the policy be
    held accountable?

    The policy is clear and reached after due consideration. The Courts are
    usually hard when nobody has bothered to think about it at all. But
    where it has been carefully thought about it becomes a matter of
    judgement and whether the judgement was reasonable. The High Court has
    accepted the view that helmets would not have helped in even a simple
    cycling fall. So I doubt that any case would succeed.

    I would agree, but the likely publicity fallout could be horrendous and
    could potentially put a stop to all training. Wrong and illogical yes,
    but I fear that would be the result.

    John B

  15. JohnB said:
    Tony Raven said:
    Quoted message said:

    Let the kids decide, perhaps - I'm not arguing either way here, but
    don't expect it to be an informed and sensible by any meaningful, adult,
    standard!

    Quoted message said:

    Whatever gets the kids to do the training is what matters and letting
    them chose other minor matters of little import to achieve that
    objective is something to be encouraged.

    Absolutely right, 'cept, IMO, that aint the way the majority view it.
    But when something goes wrong and little 8 year old Amelia bumps her
    head, a professional trainer/organiser who says "Ah but she was allowed
    to make her own decision" may find themselves on dodgy ground.

    It wasn't the trainer that decided she should decide, it was little
    Amelia's parents who made that choice, the trainer was just following
    their wishes. If as you say the vast majority think that the helmet
    would have helped then they would have instructed their offspring to
    wear it. Some may take the view that actually getting them to go to
    training is more important than a fight over a helmet of questionable
    benefit and decide to let their offspring choose. And an enlightened
    few may actually chose that their children should not be encouraged to
    see cycling as uniquely dangerous and in need of special PPE and send
    them along without a helmet.

    Tony

  16. JohnB said:


    I would agree, but the likely publicity fallout could be horrendous and
    could potentially put a stop to all training. Wrong and illogical yes,
    but I fear that would be the result.

    The Government has recently pronounced on this matter following similar
    handwringing advice from NASUWT for teachers to not do such things for
    fear of being sued. The NASUWT were attacked for it by the Commons
    Select Committee on Education and shortly thereafter B.Liar and Kelly
    stated that teacher who took reasonable care would be protected by law
    in the case of an accident.

    Tony

  17. in message <[email hidden]>, Trevor Barton

    (') said:

    Do you really expect 8-11 year olds to make an "informed and sensible
    decision" about anything, let alone something as muddy as helmet
    use?

    Yes, why not? Kids have to learn to use and exercise responsibility, and
    when given responsibility usually exercise it carefully.

    Never underestimate kids.

    Quoted message said:

    Let the kids decide, perhaps - I'm not arguing either way here, but
    don't expect it to be an informed and sensible by any meaningful,
    adult, standard!

    How many adults do you know who are capable of making decisions to that
    standard?

    --
    [email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    ;; Usenet: like distance learning without the learning.

  18. Simon Brooke said:

    in message <[email hidden]>, Trevor Barton

    (') said:

    Do you really expect 8-11 year olds to make an "informed and sensible
    decision" about anything, let alone something as muddy as helmet
    use?

    Yes, why not? Kids have to learn to use and exercise responsibility, and
    when given responsibility usually exercise it carefully.

    Yeah, but I didn't say "responsible", I said "informed and sensible". I
    agree, kids will be suprisingly responsible, but they are nevertheless
    basing that responsibility on their own outlook on the world, based in
    turn on their own understanding of it. That is neither neccessarily
    correct or particularly valid from the perspective they might have
    when they are a little bit older. If we as a society believe otherwise
    we would not place some of the restrictions we do on them - making them
    go to school, not letting them pilot passenger aircraft or command the
    nuclear submarine fleet are three that spring immediately to mind :-)

    Quoted message said:


    Never underestimate kids.

    No, but it's a good idea not to overestimate them, too :-)

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Let the kids decide, perhaps - I'm not arguing either way here, but
    don't expect it to be an informed and sensible by any meaningful,
    adult, standard!

    How many adults do you know who are capable of making decisions to that
    standard?

    Regardless, in many if not most respects, IMHO an adult is better placed
    to make that decision. That does not mean that the decision is the
    neccessarily right one, but it is usually based on a more mature and
    considered world-view than that of a child. I guess that's particularly
    true for one's own children, probably the children of a given parent are
    going to make relatively stupider decisions than that parent, simply
    because their decision making process is influenced through their
    upbringing by the parent as well as their relative lack of maturity
    and child-centric world view. That is after all what childhood and
    growing up are all about - learning about he world and how we interact
    with it and how it interacts with us. Until a child is fully mature
    it cannot be expected to reach the conclusions that an adult would,
    and as part of that parents need to make some of the hard decisions
    for their kids. Of course that view may not be particularly fashionable,
    but I'd argue that some of the ills of society today stem directly
    from the unwillingness of parents to take that sort of responsibility
    for their kids. Rather they sit back and let them decide for themselves,
    so they end up pregnant, criminal, or [censored] up at 12.

    That does not preclude many children from being more "informed and
    sensible" than many adults, of course :-)

    (Yes, I do have kids, 3 of them, 8, 12 and 14 yo)

    --
    Trevor Barton

  19. in message <[email hidden]>, erics

    (') said:

    Is there not a legal issue here? If the child is involved in an
    accident while under the supervision of the school or its
    representatives, and sustained a head injury that may have been
    preventable had a helmet been warn, could the school and its governors
    who have approved the policy be held accountable?

    What if the child is wearing a helmet, and suffers an injury (e.g. a
    rotational injury) which would not have been sustained if a helmet had
    not been worn? Would the school not be equally at risk?

    Remember, the evidence for what it's worth is that helmets aggravate at
    least as many serious injuries as they ameliorate.

    --
    [email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
    Windows 95:
    You, you, you! You make a grown man cry...
    M. Jagger/K. Richards

  20. erics said:

    Is there not a legal issue here? If the child is involved in an accident
    while under the supervision of the school or its representatives, and
    sustained a head injury that *may* have been preventable had a helmet been
    warn, could the school and its governors who have approved the policy be
    held accountable? I am sure there will be some circumstances where it may be
    argued that wearing a helmet has contributed to an injury also which turns
    the argument around the other way. May be as the issue is so clouded the
    parents should have to sign a consent form which clearly states their
    preference for or against the compulsory wearing of a helmet?

    You'll find schools are taking the "parental choice" line with many
    things - expect to see "This is the choice of the parents" all over the
    place; it at least dilutes the emphasis of responsibility.

    Hell, Governors are only volunteers - no wonder nearly all governing
    bodies in the UK have vacancies...

    --
    Chris (A Governor)

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.