I think Wally said, some pages ago: "Duty to keep children from harm". Maybe it was someone else. It's an interesting point. Does a school have a duty to keep children from harm? What is harm? I didn't play rugby at school because we were oiks and played football, hockey and cricket. Later on, there were a few people who wanted to play rugby, not that we had the posts for it, and I think they played in their lunch hour or something. I never had any great inclination to. This is why i did an arts degree. But we did have compulsory judo in the first year. It was great; I loved it. But the judo teacher got sacked when he was demonstrating throws by throwing us all in turn. One kid didn't want to be thrown and resisted futilely. The teacher was a 2nd dan black belt so a 12 year-old wasn't much of an opponent. The kid got thrown, didn't break fall and broke his arm badly. Hmmm. Should he have been excused judo? (He wasn't a weed. He was an outstanding cricketer later.) And we did cross country runs in plimsolls. I wasn't very keen, but was paradoxically quite good at them. Before I had even left school, I was sometimes running in my free time with my brother, for fun. Odd. Being sent out in March to run in the freezing cold through streams wasn't much of a laff. I'm sort of wondering to what extent kids should have to face up to challenges which might get them hurt (I broke an arm vaulting in PE - almost the only thing I have ever broken despite falling off numerous motorbikes). It's a good discussion.
Hi Glidd, I was trying to summarize what I read in the thread and then responding to that, so not my words but, in the UK schools do have a duty of care towards their pupils. I think "in loco parentis" is the legal term which implies something like the school should offer the the same kind of care as society might expect responsible parents to offer. I'm sure there are others on this site that can correct me if their interested. Anyway, I would guess that if it came to a legal fight then the pupil and/or parents would have to prove the school/teacher was negligent. But, yes, finding the line between being overprotective and offering a reasonably safe environment in which to challenge yourself is a good discussion and one where I don't think there is a definitive or absolutely right answer. I think there are just more or less wrong ones and I also think this is a fundamental part of being human. Pupils will get hurt because you can't legislate against accidents or "red mist" violence (a crime of passion). But I think what is maybe at the nub of this argument, for me at least, is keeping children safe from negligence. By the way, I have no sympathy for your judo teacher. What he did sounds very much like bullying to me.
And if hockey featured an element of the sport where players deliberately swung their sticks at their opponents legs I'm sure there would be similar calls to modify the rules to stop that element.
..............Yep......It seems many parents and teachers exercise some mature judgement and allow / encourage kids to sit on their arses all day long either watching television or playing games on a computer; whilst ignoring the fact that the kids' arses are getting fatter and fatter through lack of exercise.
Indeed. That is quite right as far as it goes. But that consideration does not justify forcing unwilling children to participate in sports at which there is significant risk of life-changing injuries, for which they then receive no compensation. Like I said, there is a wide range of sports available for kids involving running, jumping, catching, throwing, kicking, swimming, climbing, pedalling, rowing, hitting things with bats/sticks/clubs/racquets, and possibly getting cold, tired, muddy, and with skinned knees - so why insist on compelling them to perform the few sports which actually involve risk of serious permanent injury? And why should those doctors, teachers, or parents who desire kids to be preserved from major injuries be smeared by suggesting they want kids to sit on their arses all day, or that this desire is "namby pamby"?
Absolutely correct Pete............of course there is no serious risk to anyone doing the 'sports' you mention above, is there? Molly has become over-coddled IMO.
Your putting this line of " serious risk" forward, but no statistical evidence has been proffered. Surely it's "risk of potentially serious injury", but an unquantified risk. Possibly statistically minuscule. It's the management of risk, any risk, including conkers and running in the playground, and choice, that is the crux. P.s what percentage of schools compel,as you put it? -- any numbers? Or sources? Or just 'headlines'.....
Conkers got banned somewhere, didn't it? Or was it a general ban? I once had a conker that was like concrete. The only thing that managed to beat it (it was something like a 470er...) was the basset hound. She bit it in half. I was not pleased. My entire school kudos was bound up in that conker. Mind you, shows the strength of a basset hound jaw and the excellent state of her teeth.
Pain is temporary, glory is forever. As long as the activity is policed and regulated to a reasonable level, and the child wants to do it, let them do it. I gave permission for my son to go canyon walking because he wanted to try it. Wrapping them in cotton wool does not set them up for the real world, and while I can see where the argument for protecting kids from everything that might hurt them, it does not work in the long run
i am still trying in vain to convince my ex to let her son (now 18 and able to do it anyway) do his cbt.. she rides and all, but hes her only child and she wont have it.. should her fears about what may happen prevent him from doing what he really wants to do? he may be her life but he has his own and doesnt want to be wrapped in cotton wool... i would probably top myself should he get into biking (probably only due to my influence) and get hurt or worse doing so but he has the bug.. what do ya do? id like to get him on 2 wheels the right way and get every bit of training and kit available befor he rebels and does it his way...
My son is coming up old enough to ride so I now know what my parents went through, however they provided guidance and advice and let me get on with it. But after he watched me break all my ribs on one side crashing on track I think he has been dissuaded :fearscream::fearscream::fearscream:. But you have got to allow them to stretch themselves physically and emotionally while you are there to support them because one day they will have to go it alone and wrapping them in cotton wool now both literally and figuratively will not help them then
For a while there i thought ' the basset hound' was a nickname of one of your female school companions. You know the one, chunky shoes, hair in a tight bun, slightly porcine and a bit grim, captain of the second xll girls hockey... And clearly a bite to match. But you actually mean your hound ! The 470er , that mythical conker hero via accumulation of beaten foes scores. Perhaps it's a principle we should introduce into the six nations- give the Scottish something to play for, as opposed to making the numbers up. They win a game ( just one) and they gain the foes previous points. ( any hint of vinegar or baking 'preparation' in your talisman conker?
My grandmother had quite a lot of conker trees. She knew at some stage that I played conkers, so she put a load into a blue cardboard box. There were far more than I could possibly use, so I just took some out and left the others alone. They weren't very big, and they weren't very glossy. Next season came around and the ones that hadn't gone mouldy got very hard. I used to have to drill the hole in them for the string (I used a bootlace). They just turned into rock. As they were small, they were hard to hit, but it didn't make any difference anyway. The school's best conkers shattered on them. I probably didn't need more than half a dozen in a year. So no, there wasn't any preparation, apart from letting them get old, and even that wasn't deliberate. There just weren't that many horse chestnuts near where I lived and I didn't need any more anyway. Now and again I'd skewer a local one, but they never lasted long, unlike the evil Hampshire conkers.
Give the scots something to play for. If you're going to slag us off then try and do it without showing yourself up.
